Church of God News

COGwriter

Due to the huge success of Dan Brown’s recently released book (The Lost Symbol), this seemed to be a good time to comment about some of the historical comments in earlier his best-selling book, The Da Vinci Code.   Some of the more disturbing comments in it had to do with when first concluded that Jesus was divine.

The Da Vinci Code suggested that the idea of Jesus being divine was essentially a new concept that was not determined until the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.).  Notice several of those statements:

Constantine…held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea…

until that moment in history, Jesus as viewed by His followers was a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal…

Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea (Brown D. The Da Vinci Code. Doubleday, New York, 2003,page 233).

Many scholars and theologians objected to what The Da Vinci Code purported about the divinity of Jesus.

Since the book is fiction, why was there all this fuss about it?

Mainly, because it did not come across as purely fiction.

On page one (the page before the novel portion begins), which is titled FACT, the author of The Da Vinci Code stated:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate (The Da Vinci Code, page 1).

So, because of that, some people latched onto to various statements in the book as historical fact as opposed to an embellished story.  But enough complained about the Jesus divinity claims that this needed to be revisited.

Apparently because of complaints from critics, Christianity Today reported that the movie version changed this part of the story:

And the film’s version of Langdon explicitly says that Constantine did not invent the divinity of Jesus—which is almost the exact opposite of what the book’s version of Langdon says (The Da Vinci Code. Review by Peter T. Chattaway | posted 05/18/06) .

But what about the divinity of Jesus?  Was it taught prior to the Council of Nicea?

While there are a variety of unitarian groups (with the Jehovah’s Witnesses being probably the largest) that deny the deity of Jesus, the plain truth is that Jesus’ divinity was taught from the beginning.  It is both in the Bible and in early second century writings.

Here are three first century New Testament references on this subject:

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23, NKJV throughout).

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:28-29).

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).

Here is a second century reference on the subject from Polycarp who was appointed by the apostles to lead the churches from Smyrna:

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians in APOSTOLIC FATHERS (as translated by J.B. LIGHTFOOT) 12:6,7).

It probably should be noted that Dr. Lightfoot left out “Son of” in his translation, which is in the Latin. But either way, this passage does refer to Jesus as God.

Also, Ignatius, who was known by Polycarp (and praised in this same Polycarp epistle) wrote around 100-110 A.D.:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized so that by His submission He might purify the water (Ignatius of Antioch, Letters to the Ephesians 18,2–note this is translated the same by at least three separate translations as done by Dr. Lightfoot, J.H. Srawley, and Roberts & Donaldson).

Thus, there are first and second century documents that clearly claim that Jesus was considered as God and not simply a mortal prophet.

Hence, both the Bible and early writings show that Jesus was considered to be divine well prior to the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)

What may have been confusing to the author of The Da Vinci Code, as well as to others, is that there were questions raised by some concerning the nature of Jesus and His divinity which was discussed in Constantine’s Council of Nicea.  But despite what else happened then, that Council agreed with the New Testament and other Christian writers that Jesus was divine.  And although this has not been changed in the book The Da Vinci Code, at least the movie did not perpetuate the myth that Jesus was not considered to be divine until the fourth century.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

The Da Vinci Code: Some Good, Most Bad Does The Da Vinci Code properly discuss Christianity? What does it have right and what does it have wrong about early Christianity and other gospel accounts?
Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Is The Father God? What is the view of the Bible? What was the view of the early church?
Jesus is God, But Was Made Man Was Jesus fully human and fully God or what?
Virgin Birth: Does the Bible Teach It? What does the Bible teach? What is claimed in The Da Vinci Code?
Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? Or did they have a different view?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Was Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church? Many, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim it was, but was it?
Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning This is a shorter article than the Binitarian View article, but has a little more information on binitarianism.

The Christian Day of Atonement is based on the English translation of the Jewish Holy day Yom Kippur. It begins tonight at sunset.

In the original Hebrew, the Bible calls the day Yom Hakippurim (Hebrew for “Day of the Atonements”).

The day is commemorated with a 25-hour fast by Jews, but normally a 24 hour fast by Christians who observe it. While not observed by the mainstream of professing Christianity, the Christian groups (mostly those with origins in the old Worldwide Church of God) that do observe it usually refer to it as the Day of Atonement.

Because it is endorsed in the Bible, we in the Living Church of God observe the Day of Atonement.

While it is mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament), the focus of today’s article will be the New Testament and post-New Testament.

The Day of Atonement in New Testament Times

Bible believing Christians recognize that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is an atonement sacrifice to reconcile us to God. Notice what the Apostle Paul wrote:

18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

Christians that observe the Day of Atonement normally teach that on that day they are to be at one with God. And that fasting humbles them and makes them realize how dependent they are on God for all their needs. They also believe that they are dependent upon the sacrifice of Jesus for their salvation, but that Satan does play a role in encouraging people to sin.

The Living Church of God states this about the Day of Atonement (and more detail is in the article The Day of Atonement–Its Christian Significance):

…Old Testament meaning
…A day of fasting and repentance, known to the Jews as Yom Kippur (Leviticus 23:26-32)

…New Testament meaning
…Pictures the binding of Satan at the beginning of the Millennium and the world becoming at one with God.

The New Testament shows that the the Gentile Gospel writer Luke knew about the Day of Atonement, when he wrote:

…sailing was now dangerous because the Fast was already over (Acts 27:9).

What was Luke referring to according to Protestant commentators? Why the day of Atonement. Notice two such commenataries (note italics/bolding are from the sources cited):

Acts 27:9-11… Sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was already past, that is, the famous yearly fast of the Jews, the day of atonement, which was on the tenth day of the seventh month, a day to afflict the soul with fasting (from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

Acts 27:8-9… The fast to which Luke refers is the Day of Atonement (from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press).

The fact that Luke used that term for a Christian audience (Acts 1:1) strongly indicates that the Day of Atonement was known, recognized, and observed by early Christians.

Post New Testament

This is further substantiated in a Jewish account (reported in the Talmud), as related by a Catholic scholar may also be helpful here. It is recorded that an early second century Christian named Jacob (100-120 AD) with a Jewish scholar discussed the Day of Atonement and the Christian Jacob explained how it helped show “Christ head of the angels” (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.97).

And of course, when God has an angel bind Satan (Revelation 20:1) this will be another related fulfillment for the Day of Atonement.

Furthermore, it is known that in the first and second century, Polycarp of Smyrna kept both the Spring Holy Days and the Fall Holy Days.

The keeping of these days, however, was condemned by John Chrysostum near the end of the fourth century. He specifically condemned observing the Day of the Fast that the Jews also kept (see Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days?):

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts.

This condemnation, though, is specific proof that some who professed Christ still observed the Day of Atonement into the fourth century.

Additionally, comments by Jerome and Epiphanius near that time concerning the Nazarene Christians would also seem to support that those who kept the Holy Days, such as Atonement, were located in several areas at that time (see Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?).

Those who have more interest, may wish to study the following articles:

The Day of Atonement–Its Christian Significance The Jews call it Yom Kippur, Christians “The Day of Atonement”. Does it have any relevance for Christians today?
Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?
The Book of Life and the Feast of Trumpets? Are they related? Is so how? If not, where not?
The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians? What is the Last Great Day? What do these days teach?
LCG 2009 Feast of Tabernacles’ Information Here is information on many Feast of Tabernacles locations for this year.
Holy Day Calendar This is a listing of the biblical holy days through 2012, with their Roman calendar dates. They are really hard to observe if you do not know when they occur

COGwriter

Today is the Feast of Trumpets.  And although the news media tends to emphasize a different aspect of it, the Feast of Trumpets (often referred to as Rosh Hoshanah) is associated with the Book of Life by the Jews.

According to current Jewish tradition,

After Rosh Hashanah services, as the congregants leave the synagogue they say to each other… “May you be inscribed in the Book of Life“” (The Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah. High Holy Days on the Net. http://www.holidays.net/highholydays/rosh.htm verified 9/12/07).

Is there any relevance between the Feast of Trumpets, the Book of Life, and Christianity?

The seventh month is called Tishri in Hebrew and the Feast of Trumpets is referred to as the first of Tishri in some Jewish literature. Although the Jews now call it Rosh Hoshana, that was probably not its original name:

“Rosh Hashana, which literally means head of the year” {it was} “not called Rosh Hashanah until Talmudic times” (Kramer, Amy J. Rosh Hashana Origins. Copyright © 1998-1999 Everything Jewish, Inc. http://www.everythingjewish.com/RoshH/RH_origins.htm 9/16/04).

Since the terms ‘head’ and ‘year’ are not in the Old Testament passages about it, it appears that the COG term for it (Feast of Trumpets) appears to be more biblically-based that the relatively-new Jewish term ‘Rosh Hashanah’ (which has numerous spellings).

It is not totally clear how or when the Jews tied together the “Book of Life” and the Feast of Trumpets (a Talmud quote later in this article shows that they did some time ago), but they did.

From my reading in the Talmud, it appears that since many Jewish leaders believed that God created the world on the Feast of Trumpets (certain Jewish teachers taught that the creation was most likely in the Fall, rather than in the Spring because in Genesis 1:11 when God states, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit”, this would be the Fall, for that is when there is both grass and fruit on trees), that the Feast of Trumpets symbolized the beginning of creation, and hence by, inference, life.

The Talmud itself essentially concludes that the fact of the three different trumpet blasts in Numbers 10:1-10, represents three books, one of them being the Book of Life.

The first biblical allusion to the Book of Life appears to be Exodus 32:32-34,

“Yet now, if You will forgive their sin–but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”

And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. Now therefore, go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My Angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit for punishment, I will visit punishment upon them for their sin.”

Moses knew that he was mentioned in this book. It also appears from the above passage that God is speaking both about a book and a day of punishment.

The apparently same book is mentioned in Psalm 69:27-28 where both concepts are also discussed,

Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous (NIV).

Furthermore, the same book may be mentioned in two other Psalms:

You number my wanderings; Put my tears into Your bottle; Are they not in Your book? (Psalm 56:8, NKJV).

Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them (Psalm 139:16, NKJV).

In Malachi 3:16 it states,

Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, And the LORD listened and heard them; So a book of remembrance was written before Him For those who fear the LORD And who meditate on His name.

These verses show that those that fear the LORD are mentioned in a book, but those that are not righteous are not in it.

In Isaiah 27:13 it is written:

So it shall be in that day: The great trumpet will be blown; They will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, And they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt, And shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

These passages appear to be referring to the last trumpet-the one signalling the return of Christ and the establishing of the Kingdom of God.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that the type of trumpet involved with the Feast of Trumpets in the Old Testament, as well as with most alarms for battle and judgments is usually the Hebrew term, showphar, more commonly spelled shofar. This type of trumpet is some type of animal horn (normally some type of ram).

The New Testament frequently mentions the blowing of trumpets (though it does not clearly appear to distinguish between shofar trumpets and other trumpets)–though shofars are probably the type most likely being referred to when prophetic matters of judgment are involved.

Jesus taught,

…and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matthew 24:30-31).

This is similar to what Paul taught,

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

So both Jesus and Paul taught that the saints would be gathered when a particular trumpet sound goes forth. And that Jesus will come with a trumpet blast.

Which trumpet?

The last trumpet,

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed– in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

Because this is referring to the last trumpet, scripture clearly does not support the concept of a pre-tribulation rapture, like many evangelicals believe in.

Although his writings are not part of the New Testament, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and looked forward to the fulfillment of this trumpet as he wrote:

Wherefore, girding up your loins,” “serve the Lord in fear” and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things” in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians, chapter II. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 as edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.)

This last trumpet is in 1 Corinthians 15 is apparently the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11:15,

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Whose names are in the Book of Life?

Paul writes,

And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life (Philippians 4:3).

John recorded,

He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels (Revelation 3:5).

Thus it appears that the saints are the ones who are written in the Book of Life. And the saints are those that are resurrected at the last trumpet.

Other passages in the Book of Revelation mention that those that worship the beast (13:1,8;17:8), those that are involved with abominations (21:27), and those who take away words from Revelation (22:19), will not be among those whose names are written in the Book of Life.

The Jewish Talmud teaches,

R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened [in heaven] on New Year, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughly wicked are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doom of the intermediate is suspended from New Year till the Day of Atonement; if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of death.

Said R. Abin, What text tells us this? — Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. ‘Let them be blotted out from the book — this refers to the book of the wicked. ‘Of life — this is the book of the righteous. ‘And not be written with the righteous’ — this is the book of the intermediate.

R. Nahman b. Isaac derives it from here: And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written, ‘Blot me, I pray thee’ — this is the book of the wicked. ‘Out of thy book’ — this is the book of the righteous. ‘Which thou has written’ — this is the book of the intermediate. It has been taught: Beth Shammai say, There will be three groups at the Day of Judgment — one of thoroughly righteous, one of thoroughly wicked, and one of intermediate. The thoroughly righteous will forthwith be inscribed definitively as entitled to everlasting life; the thoroughly wicked will forthwith be inscribed definitively as doomed to Gehinnom, as it says. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. The intermediate will go down to Gehinnom 17b and squeal and rise again, as it says, And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name and I will answer them.

Of them, too, Hannah said, The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. Beth Hillel, however, say: He that abounds in grace inclines [the scales] towards grace, and of them David said, I love that the Lord should hear my voice and my supplication, and on their behalf David composed the whole of the passage, I was brought low and he saved me. Wrongdoers of Israel who sin with their body and wrongdoers of the Gentiles who sin with their body go down to Gehinnom and are punished there for twelve months. After twelve months their body is consumed and their soul is burnt and the wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous as it says, And ye shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be as ashes under the soles of your feet. But as for the minim and the informers and the scoffers, who rejected the Torah and denied the resurrection of the dead, and those who abandoned the ways of the community, and those who ‘spread their terror in the land of the living’, and who sinned and made the masses sin, like Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his fellows — these will go down to Gehinnom and be punished there for all generations, as it says, And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against me etc. Gehinnom will be consumed but they will not be consumed, as it says, and their form shall wear away the nether world. Why all this? Because they laid hands on the habitation [zebul], as it says, that there be no habitation [zebul] for Him, and zebul signifies the Temple, as it says, I have surely built thee a house of habitation [zebul].

Of them Hannah said, They that strive with the Lord shall be broken to pieces. R. Isaac b. Abin said: And their faces shall be black like the sides of a pot. Raba added: Among them are the most handsome of the inhabitants of Mahuza, and they shall be called ‘sons of Gehinnom’” (Talmud – Mas. Rosh HaShana 16b, 17a). Note: ‘R.” stands for “rabbi”.

Both the Bible (the Living Church of God position) and Jewish tradition state that the righteous have their names written in the Book of Life and that they will be rewarded on Tishri 1.

The Bible (and the Living Church of God) also agree with the Jewish position that others will be also have their names in it later: Revelation 20:11-15,

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Jewish tradition also teaches that those that are not truly wicked (the intermediate) will not be saved or destroyed at that time, but that they will have a ten day period until the Day of Atonement (which they call Yom Kippur) for judgment.

While this time of judgment is mentioned in Revelation 20:11-15, the COG (Church of God) position has tended to be that those who have not rejected God (blasphemed the Holy Spirit), will have an opportunity for salvation later, the period of which may last 100 years (Isaiah 65:20, and is discussed more in the article Hope of Salvation), and that this is shown by the last Holy Day, the Last Great Day, which happens on the twenty-second day of Tishri.

Revelation 20:4-5 states,

“Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

Because of this, the COG position is (and has been) that there is at least 1,000 years between when the righteous (those whose names are now written in the Book of Life) and the others being resurrected, thus the New Testament disagrees with the Jewish idea that the wicked are handled on the same Feast of Trumpets that the righteous are (it also disagrees with the 10 day position for those the Jews called ‘intermediate’–not righteous, not wicked).

Actually, one of the most significant ways that the COGs differ from the Protestant world is that the COG’s believe that nearly all will be saved and that the biblical holy days (which Protestants tend to teach are done away) picture this. (More information is found in the article, Hope of Salvation: How the COGs Differ From Protestantism.) Those who do not observe God’s Holy Days simply do not fully understand God’s plan of salvation.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Universal Offer of Salvation: There Are Hundreds of Verses in the Bible Supporting the Doctrine of True Apocatastasis Do you believe what the Bible actually teaches on this? Will all good things be restored? Will God call everyone? Will everyone have an opportunity for salvation? Does God’s plan of salvation take rebellion and spiritual blindness into account?
Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?
The Book of Life and the Feast of Trumpets? Are they related? Is so how? If not, where not?
The Day of Atonement–Its Christian Significance The Jews call it Yom Kippur, Christians “The Day of Atonement”. Does it have any relevance for Christians today?
The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians? What is the Last Great Day? What do these days teach?
Holy Day Calendar This is a listing of the biblical holy days through 2012, with their Roman calendar dates. They are really hard to observe if you do not know when they occur

Peter’s Alleged Tomb (Vatican, June 2009)

COGwriter

Was Peter buried in Rome?  Here is some of what COGaIC’s Peter Nathan reported in his two-part series:

The primacy of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, based on the apostle Peter founding the church in the city and later being martyred and buried there, has certainly been challenged since medieval times.

Back then, doubts may first have been expressed by the Waldensians, a sect out of conformity with the prevailing Roman orthodoxy. In their view, “the silence of the Bible was quite decisive,” according to Oscar Cullmann in Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (1953, 1962)…

Unfortunately there is no way of proving whether either sarcophagus or ossuary contains the true remains of Peter. It may therefore be more fruitful to leave archaeology aside and focus on the historical literature that is available to everyone to consider.

This is the approach taken in one of the major contributions to the study of this question. Cullmann, in Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, gave the literary material his primary attention in seeking a conclusion to the matter. Scholars of recent date have reinforced that approach. Summarizing his presentation at a 2001 conference in Rome of the European Association for Biblical Studies, Jürgen Zangenberg noted: “Ever since the excavations under St Peter’s Cathedral started in the 1940s and culminated in the official announcement of Pope Pius XII in 1953 that the true remains of St Peter had been found, many scholars have remained skeptical about the significance of the discoveries.” He went on to remark that “even the strongest proponents of the authenticity of the discovery cannot deny that little if anything about the earliest graves shows any clear Christian character. The first and second century CE graves very much resemble contemporaneous simple interments of common people from the neighbouring quarters of Rome.” Further, Roman Christians showed no interest in the site until “around 160 CE,” when they constructed “a simple monument that consisted of a niche and a courtyard (the Tropaion Gaii).”

Zangenberg stressed, however, that this monument could not have been intended to mark the apostle’s grave, “since memory of . . . Peter’s original burial place was lost by the time the Tropaion was erected. The existence of the Tropaion did not result in the development of a Christian burial site, but was integrated into a middle-class non-Christian burial street.” It wasn’t until Constantine’s time, he said, that “the site was firmly and finally taken over by Christians, thereby obliterating all earlier traces of burial activity apart from the immediate space around the Tropaion.” (Nathan P.  Was Peter Ever in Rome? Vision, Summer 2008).

I would like to point out here that the person that Pope Pius XII primarily relied on to make that declaration, Antonio Ferrua, later declared that he was not convinced it was Peter:

Antonio Ferrua …was the Jesuit archaeologist responsible for uncovering what is believed to be the tomb of St Peter in the grottoes under St Peter’s Basilica in Rome…Ferrua’s discovery came, however, quite by chance. In 1939 Pope Pius XI died and plans were made to bury him beside Pius X in the crypt below the basilica. But when workmen began to dig under St Peter’s they came upon the floor of Constantine’s original basilica, beneath which was a necropolis, a street of Roman tombs dating from the 2nd century AD…Under the supervision of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the Administrator of St Peter’s, the Vatican appointed four archaeologists, including Ferrua, to investigate the tombs…Ferrua’s discovery was shrouded in controversy; in 1953, after the death of Monsignor Kaas, it was revealed by a workman that he had discovered some other bones which Kaas had ordered to be removed from the repository and stored at the Vatican. When these were later identified as the remains of an elderly man, it was concluded that these were the bones of the saint. “The relics of St Peter,” announced Pope Paul VI on June 26 1968, “have been identified in a manner which we believe convincing”; the following day, after a ceremony in front of the aedicula, the remains were restored to the repository.

Ferrua was more circumspect. Aware of the scepticism that surrounded even the analysis of the Greek fragment – which others had read as Petros endei or “Peter is not here” – he recently told the Italian Catholic newspaper L’Avvenire that he was “not convinced” that the saint’s bones had been found…A man of deep faith, Ferrua was a rigorous scholar, much admired for his refusal to allow his beliefs to compromise his work (The Rev Antonio Ferrua. Telegraph, London – May 29, 2003 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1431338/The-Rev-Antonio-Ferrua.html viewed 07/20/09).

Thus, the one credited for finding Peter’s body was unconvinced by the evidence he had investigated.

Furthermore, according to the Liber Pontificalis (the Book of Popes) it was Roman bishop Cornelius who supposedly moved the body of Peter to its present location (nearly two centuries after Peter died). Here is one written account:

XXII Cornelius (Pope 251-253)…He during his pontificate at the request of a certain matron Lucina, took up the bodies of the apostles, blessed Peter and Paul up out of the catacombs by night; first the body of blessed Paul was received by the blessed Lucina] and laid in her own garden on the Via Ostiensis, near the place where he was beheaded; the body of the blessed Peter was received by the blessed Cornelius, the bishop, and laid near to the place where he was crucified, among the bodies of the holy bishops, in the shrine of Apollo, on the Mons Aureus, in the Batican, by the palace of Nero, on June 29. (Translated by Louise Ropes Loomis. The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis. Originally published by Columbia University Press, NY 1916. 2006 edition by Evolution Publishing, Merchantville (NJ), pp. 25-26).

Hence, an early  Catholic writing (circa sixth century) attempting to demonstrate that Rome had a series of early bishops/popes states that Peter was NOT originally buried in Rome.  There would be no point in moving Peter’s body if people actually had believed that the Tropaion Gaii marked the spot.

It should be noted that there is also the view that Peter died in Judea and was interred in the Mount of Olives—an ossuary box bearing the inscription “Shimon Bar Jonah” has been found and some believe it may be referring to the Simon Bar-Jonah (Fingegan J. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, reprt 1979, pp. 359-375) that became the Apostle Peter as per Matthew 16:17—and although that is inconclusive, it is probably stronger contemporary  “evidence” than Rome seems to have as Peter’s original burial site.

COGaIC’s Peter Nathan also reported:

Explicit reports of Peter having been in Rome began about a hundred years after his death. In the 190s Irenaeus, a bishop who spent time in Rome before becoming overseer of the church in Gaul, wrote a treatise commonly known as Against All Heresies in which he referred to Peter’s presence in the imperial capital…

It is important to remember that Irenaeus was writing as the second century came to an end. We have no earlier explicit statement from Rome itself of Peter’s presence or his burial there. Justin Martyr, who wrote from Rome some 40 to 50 years before Irenaeus, had made no claim of Peter having been there. Irenaeus appears to be the first of the Catholic church fathers to provide an unequivocal statement to that effect.

Of course, it is unlikely that Irenaeus simply invented the story. In fact, just prior to the time of his writing, a tomb in Rome had suddenly been declared that of Peter. Irenaeus’s references to Peter were potentially influenced by that declaration. Actually, it appears that two tombs were identified as Peter’s by two different groups, which itself developed into a controversy in the Roman capital until Pope Damasus (366–384 C.E.) established a preference for one of them.

Theologian Oscar Cullmann, who provides the most recent definitive and objective study of the apostle’s supposed martyrdom in Rome, states that “prior to the second half of the second century no document asserts explicitly the stay and martyrdom of Peter in Rome” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, emphasis added). (Nathan P.  The Birth of a Legend. Vision, Summer 2009).

I personally do not know where Peter died.  But it is believed by most Catholic scholars that the Apostle John lived for 30-35 years after Apostle Peter did.

But whether or not Peter was buried in Rome, I believe that any possible apostolic succession would have gone from the Apostle Peter to the Apostle John.

And John was believed to have been in Ephesus at the time of Peter’s death.

Hence, I believe that those interested in learning what happened to the original faithful church should focus on the area of Ephesus and the rest of Asia Minor in the late first century and the entire second century as even Catholic scholars teach that the apostles appointed Polycarp of Smyrna to lead the churches in that region.

Those interested in learning more about Peter, John, Asia Minor, and early church history, should consider studying the following documented articles:

The Apostle Peter He was an original apostle and early Christian leader. Where was Peter buried?
Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom? How should Matthew 16:18-19 be understood?
The Apostle John He was an original apostle, early Christian leader, and the last of the original apostles to die.
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.
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
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?
The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
Joyce’s Photos of Ephesus Both the Apostles Paul and John wrote to the church at Ephesus. The Apostle John, with possibly Mary (Jesus’ mother), moved to Ephesus. The Christian leader Polycrates lived in Ephesus.
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!
Polycarp of Smyrna: The Heretic Fighter Polycarp was the successor of the Apostle John and a major leader in Asia Minor. Do you know much about what he taught?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

Pope Benedict XVI

COGwriter

Zenit.org reported the following:

Pontiff Sends Message to Rimini Meeting

30th Year for Communion and Liberation Event

RIMINI, Italy, AUG. 23, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has sent a message to the 30th Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples, alluding to the theme of the gathering by affirming that an encounter with Christ is an “event” that creates communion.

The papal message, sent by the Pope’s secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, was read at today’s opening Mass of the week-long conference, sponsored by the Catholic lay Communion and Liberation movement. Some 700,000 people are attending, reflecting on the spiritual heritage left by the movement’s founder, Monsignor Luigi Giussani.

This year’s theme is “Knowledge Is Always an Event.” The papal message echoed that idea, recalling that “‘event’ is a word with which Don Giussani tried to re-explain the very nature of Christianity, which for him is an ‘encounter,’ that is, an experiential fact of knowledge and communion.”

The Pontiff relates the words “event” and “encounter” to explain how knowledge is gained, and particularly, knowledge of God.

So the current pontiff is hailing a meeting currently in Rimini.

Most people do not realize it, but there was a Catholic Church Council in Rimini in the fourth century.  The position that the council adopted was also approved by a pope (Liberius).

Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:

The second Formula of Sirmium (357) stated the doctrine of the Anomoeans, or extreme Arians. Against this the Semi-Arian bishops, assembled at Ancyra, the episcopal city of their leader Basilius, issued a counter formula, asserting that the Son is in all things like the Father, afterwards approved by the Third Synod of Sirmium (358). This formula, though silent on the term “homousios“, consecrated by the Council of Nicaea, was signed by a few orthodox bishops, and probably by Pope Liberius, being, in fact, capable of an orthodox interpretation. The Emperor Constantius cherished at that time the hope of restoring peace between the orthodox and the Semi-Arians by convoking a general council (Benigni, Umberto. “Council of Rimini.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm>).

Pneumatomachi…The majority of this sect were clearly orthodox on the Consubstantiality of the Son; they had sent a deputation from the Semi-Arian council of Lampsacus (364 A.D.) to Pope Liberius, who after some hesitation acknowledged the soundness of their faith; but with regard to the Third Person, both pope and bishops were satisfied with the phrase: “We believe in the Holy Ghost” (Arendzen, John. “Pneumatomachi.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 11 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12174a.htm>)

“In the Council of Rimini, 359 A.D…nearly all bishops present, 400 in number” decided “to sign a semi-Arian creed” (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny.  Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus.  Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956.  Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 165).

Hence, the majority at the fourth century Council of Rimini were semi-Arian. The fact that 400 bishops who met in Rimini, Italy in 359 A.D. signed a “semi-Arian creed” indicates that the majority of leaders in West accepted some type of non-trinitarian position on the Godhead.

The fourth century Council of Rimini was also called the Council of Ariminum.  Notice what Sozomen reported about it:

The partisans of Acacius remained some time at Constantinople, and invited thither several bishops of Bithynia, among whom were Maris, bishop of Chalcedon, and Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths. These prelates having assembled together, in number about fifty, they confirmed the formulary read at the council of Ariminum, adding this provision, that the terms “substance” and “hypostasis” should never again be used in reference to God. They also declared that all other formularies set forth in times past, as likewise those that might be compiled at any future period, should be condemned (Sozomen, Book IV, Chapter 24 ).

Socrates Scholasticus reported the following as part of the declaration of that Council:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty…And in…Christ our Lord and God…

But since the term ούσία, substance or essence which was used by the fathers in a very simple and intelligible sense, but not being understood by the people, has been a cause of offense, we have thought proper to reject it, as it is not contained even in the sacred writings; and that no mention of it should be made in future, inasmuch as the holy Scriptures have nowhere mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. Nor ought the “subsistence” of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to be even named. But we affirm that the Son is like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures declare and teach (Socrates Scholasticus, Book II, Chapter 41, pp. 221,222).

The same Council also taught this about the Holy Spirit:

We believe also in the Holy Spirit…as the Comforter; according to how it is written, the Spirit of truth (Ibid, p. 221).

So while Semi-Arians believe that there is a Holy Spirit, they tend to limit their beliefs to what the Bible says about it—they do not declare it to be the third co-equal person of a Greco-Roman trinity.

Notice that even the Eastern Orthodox bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century held to some form of Semi-Arian view:

Towards the middle of the fourth century, Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and, after him a number of Semi-Arians, while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, denied that of the Holy Ghost (Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

In 359, there was also a semi-Arian council of Seleucia (359) attended by Greco-Roman church leaders (Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.56). And “in 335, the semi-Arian bishops, returning from the council of Tyre” consecrated a basilica (Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, p.59).

In other words, even among the Greco-Roman bishops, many were “Semi-Arians” (also called “binitarians”) in the fourth century.  And that was an acceptable position to the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople at that time.

Two articles of related interest may include:

Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning This is a shorter article than the Binitarian View article, but has a little more information on binitarianism.

COGwriter

Believe it or not, I received several emails from someone concerning a comment in my article on baptism when I stated:

Another bizarre practice that some claim used to be involved with compromised “Christianity” was nude baptism. Notice the following:

In at least some churches…the candidate was baptized naked, the children first, then the men, and finally the women. No one was to take into the water anything except his body (Latourette KS. A History of Christianity, Volume 1: to A.D. 1500. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1975, p. 194).

As the Bible in no way endorses (nor records) nude baptism, the above demonstrates that pagan practices were used for people who professed, but apparently did not understand, Christ.

Because here is the question I was challenged with:

You claimed that early church baptism was performed clothed. Yet this is contrary to the uniform testimony of the early church fathers who wrote of their practices.

If false Christians are considered to be “early church fathers” then the answer is yes, but if we are talking about real Christian leaders, there simply is no historical evidence of this.

The records of true second century Church leaders are scarce, and many (like most of the writings of Melito and Theophilus) were apparently destroyed (or somehow “lost’) by Greco-Romans. Partially because of this, in the 21st century, we simply do not have writings of every pagan practice that they condemned.

The earliest non-biblical writings (second century) that may have been Christian that mention baptism state:

6:2… Let your baptism abide with you as you shield (Ignatius’s Letter to Polycarp. J.B. Lightfoot translation).

1:2…truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him…8:2 It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast (Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans. J.B. Lightfoot translation).

18:2 For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost; and He was born and was baptized that by His passion He might cleanse water (Ignatius’s Letter to the Ephesians. J.B. Lightfoot translation).

6:9 But if even such righteous men as these cannot by their righteous deeds deliver their children, with what confidence will we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who will be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works? (Ancient “Christian” Sermon, sometimes improperly titled 2 Clement)

Publicly nudity would seem to be inconsistent with the idea of baptism being a shield, pure, and undefiled.

Perhaps I should add that Melito of Sardis mentions Christ’s baptism (On the Nature of Christ) and the heretic Irenaeus in his writings does as well, but they are consistent with the previously listed passages. Again, there is nothing in what appears to be Christian writings that endorse nude baptism in the second century.

Though some Greco-Roman leaders wrote about nude baptism in the third and fourth centuries, no one that we in the Living Church of God consider may have actually been a Christian endorse naked baptism.

Public Modesty is Endorsed in the New Testament

Public modesty is the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9 and1 Peter 3:3. Also notice:

23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need (1 Corinthians 12:22-24).

Notice that there are parts of the body that are not publicly presentable. Hence, I contend that those who decided to adopt nude baptism were doing so in violation of scripture.

Furthermore, nearly all the comments about nakedness in the Old and New Testament are in a negative light (e.g..Genesis 9:22-23; 2 Corinthians 5:3; Revelation 3:18; 16:15). Additionally, there is a passage in the New Testament that would have likely been written differently if nude baptism was acceptable:

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (Romans 8:35)

If God wanted people baptized naked, He would not have the Apostle Paul suggest that being naked would be in the category of things that could separate believers from the love of Christ. To the contrary, He would have had Paul leave the word naked out.

If God wanted Christians to be baptized nude, He would have left some instruction in the Bible.  But it is not there.  The Bible and early Christian writings do not support that any associated with the true Church practiced nude baptism.

Two articles of related interest may include:

Baptism and the Early Church Was it by immersion? Did it include infants?
Did Real Christians Practice Nude Baptism? This is not a joke. Find out what was taught in the second and later centuries.

COGwriter

I have long contended that what passes for mainstream Christianity is the result of compromise.  There are numerous quotes from historical sources at the www.cogwriter.com website (and its companion site The History of Early Christianity) that document that.

But here is one that very few people seem to know about written by a Arab Muslim in the early 11th century concerning an account of what apparently occurred in Jerusalem in the 130s A.D..  It was written originally in Arabic by Abd al-Jabbar:

(71a) ‘After him’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.

The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”

The Christians answered: “We will do this.”

(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”

But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-’Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.” (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 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.

It is a fact that the Romans made a deal with those who were willing to renounce original Christianity in Jerusalem in 135 A.D. (see The Ephesus Church Era). It is possible that the above account is related to that (or may have been what led to the 135 deal).

It is also a fact that in the second century, Romans and Alexandrians that claimed Christ rejected the biblical date for Passover and probably because of compromise with the Romans (see Passover and the Early Church), apparently switched to regular Sunday worship (see Sunday and Christianity), and decided that eating biblically unclean meat was acceptable (see The New Testament Church and Unclean Meats). Thus, it is possible that the Arabic document demonstrates that.

Those interested in learning more should carefully and prayerfully study the following:

Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices Were their faithful Arabs who held to original Christianity?
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
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?
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?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

Templo de San Hipoito (Hippolytus of Rome) in Mexico City

COGwriter

Today is the Roman Catholic feast day for Hippolytus of Rome.

Although Hippolytus was apparently elected to be the Bishop of Rome in the early third century, Rome considers that the corrupt Callistus who apparently bribed his way to take control as the one through whom it currently claims “apostolic succession“.

Hippolytus is an interesting figure as the Church of Rome considers him to be both the first “antipope” as well as a Catholic saint.

Furthermore, unlike the corrupt Callistus , Hippolytus was and still is considered to have been an important theologian.  Notice what The Catholic Encyclopedia reported about him:

Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. (Kirsch, Johann Peter. “St. Hippolytus of Rome.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 4 Aug. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm>.)

Although he held some compromised positions, Hippolytus also held several theological positions close to those still held by the Living Church of God that the Church of Rome no longer holds.

For example, he taught that God had a six-thousand year plan for humanity (this believe was held by Roman Catholics throughout history until around the time that Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, became influential).  Here is what Hippoplytus wrote:

And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. “Since, then, in six days God made all things”, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days’ Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm viewed 9/17/07)

The six-thousand year plan is still taught by the Living Church of God (please see Does God Have a 6,000 Year Plan? What Year Does the 6,000 Years End?).

Towards the end of the six-thousand years, Hippolytus also taught:

And the dragon, he says, saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man- child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains… (Hippolytus. On Christ and Antichrist, Chapter 61)

This is consistent with the teachings of the Living Church of God (please see There is a Place of Safety for the Philadelphians. Why it May Be Petra).

He also taught against military service for Christians:

That it is not meet for Christians to bear arms… (Hippolytus. Heads of the Canons of Abulides or Hippolytus, Which Are Used by the Ethiopian Christians. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886)

16:6 A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 7 If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. 8 If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 9 A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. 10 If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 11 The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. (Hippolytus. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. From the work of Bernard Botte (La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984) and of Gregory Dix (The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992) as translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html viewed 08/06/09)

The Living Church of God still holds to pacifism for Christians (please see Military Service and the Churches of God: Do Real Christians Participate in Carnal Warfare?).

Hippolytus also taught that one is begotten by the Holy Spirit upon conversion:

This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of thee, that He may show thee to be the Son of God.  Come then, be begotten again, O man, into the adoption of God…For he who comes down in faith to the layer of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage, and puts on the adoption,–he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ. (Hippolytus. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapters 9,10. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight)

The doctrine that one is begotten by the Holy Spirit upon conversion is still taught by the Living Church of God (see Born Again: A Question of Semantics?).

Like all early Christians, Hippolytus held a binitarian view of the Godhead as he wrote:

He did not say, “I and the Father am one, but are one.” For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. (Hippolytus. Against Noetus: Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Chapter 7.  from The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical.  Roberts-Donaldson English Translators. Copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby)

Because of that view, the corrupt Callistus called him a ditheist.  Hippolytus also complained about Callistus’ heretical view of the Godhead, which indicated that Callistus’ more “trinitarian” view was not universally accepted or Hippolytus would not likely have publicly complained about it as a heresy.  The Living Church of God still holds to the original Christian view of the Godhead (please see Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning).

But the reality is that Callistus was corrupt (he even allowed abortions, see “Pope” Callistus) and that is how most objective historians have viewed him.

So why would those in the Vatican claim “apostolic succession” through one who somehow took over the bishopric of Rome through bribery, permitted abortions, and was in other ways corrupt?

Because if it accepted that its greatest third century theologian Hippolytus as a proper “Bishop of Rome”, it would be much more obvious to everyone that the Church of Rome radically changed many of its original teachings and doctrines.  Because that is what Hippolytus’ writings show.

It is unlikely that Catholics who will observe Hippolytus’ feast day today are aware of what he and his writings really represent.

But now that you do, an article of possibly related interest should include:

Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a igreja viva do deus? Tambien Español: Cuál es fiel: ¿La iglesia católica romana o La Iglesia del Dios Viviente? Auch: Deutsch: Welches zuverlässig ist: Die Römisch-katholische Kirche oder die lebende Kirche von Gott?

COGwriter

Most people know that the Old Testament teaches that souls can die.  One of the clearest passages in from Ezekiel:

Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4).

This is also a New Testament concept.

Jesus confirmed that souls can and will be destroyed when He taught:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body (Matthew10:28).

If souls were truly immortal, then they could not be destroyed.

Perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament is John 3:16 which states:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Notice the contrast above. Humans would perish (and this means eternally, since all die physically) if God had not loved the world enough to send Jesus so that the believers could have everlasting life.

Paul clearly understood this concept as here is some of what he wrote about immortality:

For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:52-54).

Notice that Paul is saying that we must be changed in order to possess immortality. And that this occurs at the resurrection. No human has immortality now.

Nor did Paul as he taught:

I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended (Philipians3:8-13).

Thus, the immortality attained at the resurrection is not something that Christians have today.

Furthermore, all humans cannot possible possess immortality now. Look at what the Apostle John taught:

…you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15).

Since many people are or have been murderers, this proves that not all humans possess immortality.

Currently, look at who only has immortality:

He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

Thus Jesus is the only one who was born human that who alone currently possesses immortality.

Other than the quotes above, the following are all the remaining times the NKJV uses the terms immortal or immortality:

…who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality (Romans 2:6-7).

…our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10).

However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. Now to the King eternal, immortal (1 Timothy 1:16-17).

Note that every passage in the Bible that uses the terms immortal or immortality say that Jesus has immortality, that humans do not have it, that Jesus came so that humans can have it, and that He came to abolish death.

Why would this even be an issue if humans were already immortal?

Second Century Church Writings

But what about the early Church? After the apostles died (John being the last around 100 A.D.), there were early church writers who continued to teach what the apostles taught, which is what is in the Old and New Testaments.

Here is something from what is believed to be “the oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived” (Holmes M.W. Ancient Christian Sermon. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004). This Ancient Christian Sermon contains these statements about it:

Now I do not think that I have given any mean council respecting continence, and whosoever performeth it will not repent thereof, but will save both himself and me his councilor. For it is no mean reward to convert a wondering and perishing soul, that it may be saved (15:1).

For if we have received commands, that we should make this our business, to tear men away from idols and to instruct them, how much more is it wrong that a soul which knoweth God already should perish! (17:1).

Souls that can perish cannot be immortal.

From the Letter to the Corinthians, often called 1 Clement:

On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors (Chapter 16).

Notice this from Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians:

For this end did the Lord suffer the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church (Chapter 17).

Especially [will I do this] if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ (Chapter 20).

Ignatius is essentially teaching that Christ suffered to give immortality to the Church and we in the Church when we properly partake of Passover can live forever in Christ–otherwise we would die.

Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before you is immortality and eternal life, of which you are also persuaded (Ignatius. Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 2).

Polycarp of Smyrna (mid-2nd century) taught that the body and soul were to be resurrected, hence he taught against the immortality of the soul doctrine:

I bless you for because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14:2. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 2004, p.239).

Though the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch now lists him in their succession list, around 170 A.D. Theophilus of Antioch wrote a position that seems to differ from current Eastern Orthodox doctrine on immortality:

When thou shalt have put off the mortal, and put on incorruption, then shall thou see God worthily. For God will raise thy flesh immortal with thy soul; and then, having become immortal, thou shalt see the Immortal, if now you believe on Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter VI. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God…so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God…For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXVII. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

But God at least, the Father and Creator of the universe did not abandon mankind, but gave a law, and sent holy prophets to declare and teach the race of men, that each one of us might awake and understand that there is one God. And they also taught us to refrain from unlawful idolatry, and adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and uncleanness; and that whatever a man would not wish to be done to himself, he should not do to another; and thus he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XXXIV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Others taught the same doctrine in the third century.  However, that is not the teaching of most groups that claim to be Christian.

To learn when and how this doctrine was changed in the mainstream, please see the article Did Early Christians Believe that Humans Possessed Immortality?

This morning “Christianity Today” (CT) reported the following on Christianity in China:

Did You Know?

In 635, a Christian leader from Persia named Alopen arrived in Chang’an, the capital of the Tang dynasty. Christianity was at first welcomed by the Chinese. But two centuries later, imperial persecution forced Christians to flee mainland China. A nine-foot-tall limestone monument in Chang’an, erected in 781, commemorates the “Luminous Religion” brought by Alopen and his fellow missionaries. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/index.html#didyouknow viewed 08/03/09)

Now, what they failed to mention is that these Christians were Sabbath-keepers, nor did they share many of the Greco-Roman church doctrines that CT still promotes.

Apparently no later than the seventh century, history records that there were Sabbath-keepers in China who claimed Christianity.

The following excerpt provides some proof of this:

The Chang-An Monument

“It was in the year 1625; the Jesuits had infiltrated the fabric of the Chinese cultured classes, when a sensational discovery was made. A large monument stone inscribed with nineteen hundred Chinese characters, and fifty Syrian words, was unearthed just outside the walls of Chang-An, the ancient capital of the Tang Dynasty. The news of this discovery caused a bustle of excitement in the ancient metropolitan city, and thousands were anxious to know what information about their cultural heritage was hidden in the writing.

The Jesuits, who were regarded as the teachers and scholars, were immediately summoned to decipher the inscriptions. To the astonishment of these haughty priests, there before their eyes, was a description of the prestigious position, and vast extent of the seventh-day Sabbath-keeping Christian Church of the East of a millennia before!

The ancient Chinese characters were inscribed in 781 AD, at the command of Emperor Tae-Tsung, to honor the arrival of an Assyrian missionary and his companions to the capitol in the year 635 AD from Ta Tsin, or Judea. The stone revealed beliefs and practices of the primitive Christian church, which were unrelated and out of harmony with the Roman Catholic beliefs.

One of the passages reads:

“On the Seventh Day we offer sacrifices after having purified our hearts, and received absolution from our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts.”

In a state of shock, the Jesuits, and the Mandarins, a class of scholarly religious Chinese rulers, worked to alter the Chinese characters to reflect the Catholic doctrines, for if the expectant population were to learn what the stone really said, it would greatly damage their beliefs in the Catholic doctrines, and diminish the influence of the Mandarins.

But something very different than the expected resulted. Today, after carefully comparing the known facts of history with an examination of the historical and doctrinal facts written on the stone, a fraud is obvious.

The Chang-An Monument, or the “speaking stone,” as it is called, is considered to be as important a find as the Rosetta Stone, for it had the inscriptions in more than one language. The truth was preserved because the Jesuits were not able to read the inscription that was in Syrian.

From the reading of the stone today an irrefutable fact of history quickly becomes obvious.  That ancient Sabbath-keeping Christianity had been very prominent and extensive throughout the Orient as late as the eighth and ninth centuries. ” (Excerpt  from “Our Sabbath Heritage” by James Arrabito. Sabbath Sentinel. September-October 2000).

How long some in China kept the Sabbath is unclear. But what is clear is that they did. And since that monument dates from the eighth century to commemorate the arrival from Judea of missionaries in 635, it is certainly possible that Sabbath-keeping occurred well after the monument was made. It is also possible that Sabbath-keeping occurred in China previous to that particular missionary trip and that no records were made (or at least found) as well.

Here is more information about this period:

The earliest record of any Christian mission to China is found inscribed on the Nestorian monument in Sianfu, erected in A.D. 781. Sianfu was the capital of the T’ang empire (A.D. 618-906) and the center of the then-greatest civilization in the world. This monument recorded the visit to the T’ang court of a band of Christians led by Alopen from Ta-chin (Syria). Alopen brought with him the “true scriptures.” They were given to T’ang T’ai-tsung who commanded that they be translated in the royal library. These Christians flourished under royal sponsorship until A.D. 845, when they suffered persecution, and soon afterward, near extinction…

In 1908 other Christian documents were found…Sir Aurel Stein, a British archaeologist, purchased these ancient manuscripts, one of which was dated 641 A.D., and is thus the oldest Chinese translation of any gospel portion. It is thought that these documents were written by the same Christian group as those in Sianfu (Kang C.H., Nelson E.R. The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1979, p. 28).

FWIW, even Wikipedia admits that the “Nestorian” group of Christians was in China prior to the Catholics of Rome, but it also reports that the Romans were able to basically take over after some time.  Sadly, apostasy has happened in all lands.

It is also possible that the Apostle Thomas made it personally to China (or at least as far east as Malaysia), with an earlier falling away as well.

But be that as it may, Sabbath-keeping Christians were apparently the first Christians in China.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

China, Its Biblical Past and Future, Part 1: Genesis and Chinese Characters This article provides information showing that the Chinese peoples must have known about various accounts in the Book of Genesis up until their dispersion after the Tower of Babel.
China, Its Biblical Past and Future, Part 2: The Sabbath and Some of God’s Witness in China When did Christianity first come to China? And is there early evidence that they observed the seventh day sabbath?
The Dramatic Story of Chinese Sabbathkeepers This reformatted Good News article from 1955 discusses Sabbath-keeping in China in the 1800s.
Asia in Prophecy What is Ahead for Asia? Who are the “Kings of the East”? What will happen to nearly all the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and others of Asia? China in prophecy, where? Who has the 200,000,000 man army related to Armageddon?
The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a igreja viva do deus? Tambien Español: Cuál es fiel: ¿La iglesia católica romana o La Iglesia del Dios Viviente? Auch: Deutsch: Welches zuverlässig ist: Die Römisch-katholische Kirche oder die lebende Kirche von Gott?