Church of God News

COGwriter

Yesterday, the following was reported in the news:

“There are numerous other cases where national identity and religion are officially connected in some way, and where there are official bonds between a nation-state and an ethnocultural Diaspora,” he writes.

The Greek constitution, for example, makes some surprising provisions. Though it promises, to quote from article 13, that “every known religion is free and the forms of worship thereof shall be practiced without any hindrance by the State and under protection of the law,” its preamble nevertheless begins with: “In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity.” In the constitution itself, article 3 asserts that “the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ” and takes pains to note that this church, “acknowledging as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ is indissolubly united in doctrine with the Great Church of Constantinople and every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine.”…

The preamble to the Irish constitution begins: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred.” Norway’s constitution decrees that “the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State,” that “more than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State,” and even that “the inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same.”…http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794271014&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

And while I was told in Greece that the real power behind that government is the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church there, I had not realized that Greece and Ireland put the trinity in their constitutions.

While they most likely felt that they meant well when they did that, the truth is the the trinity was not the belief of the early Christian church.

The trinity first became taught by two heretics (one of which got it from paganism) and over time mainly in the 3rd and 4th centuries, it became the predominant view of the Greco-Roman confederation of churches (although it was not the majority view in Asia Minor until about the end of the 4th century).

Want proof?

Here are two quotes from Catholic scholars. The first is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which states,

Semiarians and Semiarianism A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century…showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance…rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost…

The “East” meant those in Asia Minor. Thus, it is clear that many held the binitarian view at that time (including no doubt, many who were not true Christians). Notice that the majority were binitarian (another term for “Semi-Arian”), which means that they were not trinitarian.

Have you been taught this before?

The second is from a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra around the middle of the fourth century,

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God…These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him ‘On the Three Natures’. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), ‘On the Holy Church’: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus was a second century heretic denounced publicly by the faithful Polycarp of Smyrna.

Want more proof that the early church was NOT trinitarian?

Then please consider reading and studying the following documented articles:

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.
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?

COGwriter

For the past couple of days there have been claims that the oldest known church has been found.

Here is one of the more balanced news reports (bolding mine):

Ancient cave found under church

Associated Press - June 9, 2008

AMMAN, Jordan - Archaeologists in Jordan said Monday they have discovered a cave underneath one of the world’s oldest churches that may have once been an even more ancient site of Christian worship.

Archaeologist Abdel-Qader Hussein, head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies, says the cave was unearthed in the northern Jordanian city of Rihab after three months of excavation and shows evidence of early Christian rituals.

The cave lies under St. Georgeous church, built in 230 A.D., making it one of the oldest churches in the world, along with one unearthed in the Jordanian southern port of Aqaba in 1998 and another in Israel discovered in 2005.

Hussein said there was evidence that the underground cave was used as a church by 70 disciples of Jesus in the first century after Christ’s death, which would make it the oldest Christian site of worship in the world.

He described a circular worship area with stone seats separated from a living area that had a long tunnel leading to a source of water. He said the early Christians hid there from persecution.

A mosaic inscription on the floor of the later church of St. Georgeous above refers to “the 70 beloved by God and the divine” who founded the worship there.

Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh, who led the discovery of the church in Aqaba, said that while he hadn’t seen the Rihab site, any such claim should be taken with a degree of caution.

“An extraordinary claim like this requires extraordinary evidence,” he said. “We need to see the artifacts and dating evidence to suggest such an occupation in the 1st century A.D.”

Parker asked how archeologists could be certain whether the “cave was actually a center of Christian worship.”

The archeologist also noted that mosaics are difficult to date unless there is a precise date in the text of the mosaic inscriptions themselves and typical mosaic inscriptions with Christian themes are from the 5th to 6th century.

“It’s quite possible that there was a cave with earlier occupation which was later converted to Christian use. But to make the jump that this was actually used by Christians fleeing Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D. seems like a stretch to me,” Parker said.

Archimandrite Nektarious, Bishop Deputy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in Amman hailed the discovery, calling it an “important milestone for Christians all around the world and right here at home.”

“It confirms that Christians in this region are not strangers,” he said. “They are real citizens who have always had roots in this region from those days until the present.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25061134/

The fact is that while true Christians may have once had a building, they most certainly DID NOT have icon-like drawings.

The Orthodox are desperate to find any proof that their practices associated with icons started before the 1st or 2nd centuries, and even with this “find” they still have no proof.

The early church did not have the rituals or icons found in all Orthodox churches today.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons? Did Catholic and Orthodox “saints” endorse or condemn idols and icons for Christians?
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups claim to be the original church, but both groups have differing ways to claim it. Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
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?
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!

COGwriter

As regular Bible readers are aware, Jesus had the Apostle John write messages to seven churches in Asia Minor. All seven were told to listen to what the Spirit said to the churches and all seven received some prophetic warnings.

And while there were complaints against 5 of the 7, there were none for two of them. The two that received no criticism were the churches of Philadelphian and Smyrna. And while most affiliated with the Church of God are familiar with at least part of the Philadelphia era of the Church (which was essentially represented by the pre-January 1986 Worldwide Church of God and now the Living Church of God), most people know very little about the Smyrna era of the Church of God–which is one of those that we in the Living Church of God trace our history through.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were once again in Smyrna (which has been renamed Izmir by the Turks). The following is a picture of some of the ancient ruins there:

Ancient Smyrna (Taken May 11, 2008).

(Those interested in seeing more photos may wish to visit the Joyce’s Photos of Smyrna page.)

But there is an important aspect of Smyrna that I wish to emphasize today. Do you know what the Church of Smyrna really taught? And do you know why that is important?

While nearly all churches claim to get their doctrines at least partially from the Bible, might it not be helpful to realize what the church that was lead by the descendants of the apostles actually taught?

Both the Apostles John and Philip lived in Asia Minor until their deaths. And both apparently lived longer (with John clearly the longest–until the end of the 1st century) than the other apostles. Early church historians (2nd century–as well as later ones) are in agreement that the apostles appointed Polycarp to lead the churches there.

So if the Smyrna church was faithful, what did Polycarp and his Smyrnaean successors teach?

Notice the following list of teachings of early Christianity–all of which are accepted by the true Church of God and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics or Protestants (though early leaders considered as “saints” by the Catholics also held them):

Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.
A Binitarian view was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Deification of Christians was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental–nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter was not observed by the apostolic church.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including the use of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on the same day that the Jews observed it by all professing Christians.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church, with others being called later, though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
God’s Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians–and in the order that the Living Church of God claims they are in.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
The Virgin Birth was acknowledged by all true ante-Nicene Christians.

What About Today?

Almost none who profess Christianity hold to all of those beliefs.

The largest group (which happens to also be a “little flock”) that agrees with all the positions above, that were part of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is the Living Church of God.

It also specifically traces its history from the Apostles through Polycarp, Polycrates, and other leaders in Asia Minor.

That is part of why I believe that the Living Church of God has the clearest ties to the apostolic church of any church on this planet.

Articles of possibly related interest may include:

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?
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3.
1. The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
2. The Smyrna Church Era was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.
3. The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
4. The Thyatira Church Era was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era was predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. Non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
There are Many COGs: Why Support the Living Church of God? This is an article for those who wish to easily sort out the different COGs. It really should be a MUST READ for current and former WCG members or any interested in supporting the faithful church. It also explains a lot of what the COGs are all about.

COGwriter

As regular readers of this page are aware, the early church was neither trinitarian nor unitarian. The early church was binitarian.

That is, early Christians considered that the Father and the Son were God and that the Holy Spirit was the power of God. And while some dispute this, historically it is a fact.

While there are many articles at the COGwriter website which document the binitarian beliefs of 2nd century Christians, I thought that a few quotes from modern theologians may be eye-opening for those who have had little exposure to the binitarian truth of the Godhead.

Modern scholars, like Larry Hurtado, have realized the Christians who claimed to be Nazarene including most considered to be proto-orthodox” held a binitarian view of the Godhead:

…”Nazarene” Christianity, had a view of Jesus fully compatible with the beliefs favored by the proto-orthodox (indeed, they could be considered part of the circles that made up proto-orthodox Christianity of the time). Pritz contended that this Nazarene Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity in the first and second centuries…the devotional stance toward Jesus that characterized most of the Jewish Christians of the first and second centuries seems to have been congruent with proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus…the proto-orthodox “binitarian” pattern of devotion…(Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2003, pp. 560-561,618).

Furthermore, it perhaps should be mentioned that the sacra nomina (generally two-letter abbreviations, perhaps intended to identify the documents as “Christian”) found on early documents associated Christianity is also believed to support the position that those that professed Christ in the second century were binitarian. Larry Hurtado also observed:

The Christian nomina sacra…differ in form from any Jewish scribal devices…Most significantly, the four earliest Christian nomina sacra are the two key words for God (Theos and Kyrios) and key designations for Jesus (Iēosus, Christos, and Kyrios). If therefore, as is usually believed, the nomina sacra practice represents an expression of piety and reverence, it is a striking departure from pre-Christian Jewish scribal practice to extend to these designations of Jesus the same scribal treatment given to key designations for God. That is, the four earliest Christian nomina sacra collectively manifest one noteworthy expression of what I have called the “binitarian shape” of earliest Christian piety and devotion (Hurtado LW. The Earliest Christian Artifacts. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids (MI), 2006, pp. 105-106).

Dr. Harold Brown, a Protestant trinitarian scholar, has admitted:

The language of the New Testament permits the Holy Spirit to be understood as an impersonal force or influence more readily than it does the Son…those who saw the Holy Spirit as a Person, were often heretical, for example, the Montanists (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 140).

Harold Brown also has admitted:

It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity (ibid, p.5).

And that is true. And he was specifically referring to doctrines like the trinity and other teachings that are contrary to what the Living Church of God holds.

What about Catholic scholars? The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this about the 4th century binitarians, which it calls the Semi-Arians:

Semi-Arians…A name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century…showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance…rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Chapman, John. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Semiarians and Semiarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Thus it is clear that many held the binitarian view at that time (including no doubt, many who were not true Christians).

What about Orthodox scholars? Notice this frank admission from a bishop of the Orthodox Church about the late acceptance of the trinity:

…the councils defined once and for all the Church’s teaching upon the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith — the Trinity and the Incarnation. All Christians agree in regarding these things as ‘mysteries’ which lie beyond human understanding and language…the first two, held in the fourth century…formulated the doctrine of the Trinity…The work of Nicea was taken up by the second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381. This council expanded and adapted the Nicene Creed, developing in particular that teaching upon the Holy Spirit, whom it affirmed to be God even as the Father and the Son are God…It was the supreme achievement of St. Athanasius of Alexandria to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Cred: homoousios, one in essence or substance, consubstantial. Complementary to his work was that of the three Cappadocian Fathers, Saints…(died 394). While Athanasius emphasized the unity of God — Father and Son are one in essence (ousia) - the Cappadocians stressed God’s threeness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (hypostasis) (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 20-23).

So it took councils of men to change the predominant view that the Godhead was basically binitarian to trinitarian. Yet, as recorded in the New Testament, Jude wrote:

“…contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered for the saints” (Jude 3).

The faith delivered once for all should not have been changed.

Such a doctrinal change to the trinity should never have been made and never has been adopted by the true Christian Church.

Regarding the New Testament, even a trinitarian scholar has admitted:

The binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13…No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament…There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers…(Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy. Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3).

Since modern scholars know that the early church was binitarian and not trinitarian, have you been taught this before?

If not, perhaps you had better look into this further.

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?
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 above is an old photo we took of modern Izmir during the Feast of Tabernacles in 1990. Izmir was anciently called Smyrna, which is one of the seven churches in Revelation 2 & 3 (you can click here for more of Joyce’s Photos of Smyrna).

COGwriter

My wife and I have been in Asia Minor for the past week and a half visiting places of religious and historical interest. This is our third visit to Turkey, but it also has been our longest one (and if any of you sent an email that I have not responded to, it is because I have not been able to respond for a while–I hope to get caught up with them next week).

On this trip, we have been able to visit the several of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3. On prior trips we have visited Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos. On this trip, we got to spend more time in Smyrna (now called Izmir), plus were to visit Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea for the first time.

(We also got to visit Istanbul–once called “Constantinople”–as well as Cappadocia, and other towns of ancient Asia Minor.)

Since many people do not realize that the churches in Revelation 2 & 3 have both historical and prophetic ramifications for representing the seven consecutive eras of the true church throughout the entirety of the church age, most people simply do not realize what happened to the early Christian Church.

The plain truth is that the New Testament canon was first put together in Asia Minor, most books of the New Testament were directly written to or from people in Asia Minor, and the last of Jesus’ original apostles (John) died in Asia Minor.

Asia Minor, and not Rome nor Alexandria, was the primary location of the first and second century Christian Church.

Those interested in the truth about the early church may wish to study the following documented articles:

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?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
1. The Ephesus Church Era was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
2. The Smyrna Church Era was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.
3. The Pergamos Church Era was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
4. The Thyatira Church Era was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition.
5. The Sardis Church Era was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
6. The Philadelphia Church Era was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
7. The Laodicean Church Era was predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. Non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!

COGwriter

Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi wrote:

The Roots of Eternal Security Are Found in Gnosticism

Some scholars trace the roots of eternal security back to the Gnostic teachings that found their way into the early church, especially through Augustine. For example, Jeff Paton notes: “Ultimately, the roots of eternal security are in the Gnosticism that preceded Augustine. But it was Augustine that has the unwelcomed honor of leavening the whole lump.”⁵

Gnosticism was a religious movement that flourished during the second and third centuries A. D., and presented a major challenge to Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs differed sharply from those of the majority of the early Christians. The term Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis (“revealed knowledge”). The Gnostics taught that sparks or seeds of the Divine Being were imprisoned into certain human beings. Reawakened by knowledge, the divine element in humanity can return to its proper home in the transcendent spiritual realm.

The gnostics divided mankind into three categories: the spiritual (pneumatic), the carnal (hylic), and the in-between (psychic). The spiritual Christians were a special or higher class than the ordinary Christians. They were said to be saved regardless of what they did because they had received, as the elect of the good deity, a divine spark into their beings that allowed them to be redeemed. This teaching is strikingly similar to the Calvinistic doctrine that God elected some people to be saved and others to be lost.

The second class, the carnal, were assumed to be beyond salvation, because their lives were governed by material wants and desires. The in-betweens were believed to be capable of salvation if they followed the Gnostic teachings.

It is not difficult to see the striking similarity between Gnostic and Calvinistic teachings. There are some differences, but the essence of their teachings is similar. Both Gnostics and Calvinists agree that Christians are saved not by means of their choice, but on account of their nature. Both taught that people are saved on account of their election. The Gnostic spirituals claimed to be the “elect seed,” because they had a divine spark in their being. Calvinists say that they are elected to salvation by the sovereign will of God. Both agree that their divine election is not affected in a negative way by their actions.

Both Gnostic and Calvinists taught that any sinful action does not affect their eternal salvation. The dualistic Gnostic teaching was illustrated by comparing their spiritual nature to a pure golden ring and their material body to a pile manure. The ring can be placed into a pile of dung, but is not affected by the filthiness of the dung. Its purity remains unchanged.

Both agree that there is nothing that can cause a saved persons to loose their salvation. The Gnostic took this teachings to its ultimate conclusion by pursuing their own lust and passions without restraints. Calvinists, however, believe that Christians who are saved grow in sanctification, though they would not lose their salvation, if they did not.

The similarities outlined above between Gnosticism and the Calvinistic doctrine of “Once saved, always saved,” are too numerous to be ignored. They serve to remind us that the teaching of eternal security is pagan in its origin and stands in open opposition to the teaching of the Bible.

A Biblical Evaluation of the Predestination of the Elect

The notion of God’s arbitrary predestination of some to salvation and other to perdition, is contrary to the overall teaching of the Bible. The message of the Bible is that God is both just and merciful…

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that God wants every human being to be saved. Christ’s atoning sacrifice is for all, not for a selected few. The invitation and call of salvation is extended to all (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 197. “ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED”. April 2008).

And on the above he is correct.

And perhaps it should be pointed out that the Apostle Paul made it clear that he did not believe in once saved always saved as he wrote that he could lose his salvation:

But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27).

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. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended (Philippians 3:12-13).

It was Gnostic heretics like the second century Marcion that essentially set the stage of Calvinism, Lutheranism, and certain other forms of Protestantism.

John Calvin himself was a heretic as he condoned the killing of Anabaptists (please see Persecutions by Church and State), endorsed infant baptism, taught against the millennium (please see Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism?), and held to a variety of unbiblical doctrines.

If you are Protestant, this may be a good time to wake up and realize that the God of love really does have a plan to offer salvation to everyone who ever lived. And that it was from heretics that “once saved always saved” originated.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

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.
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? Does God’s plan of salvation take rebellion and spiritual blindness into account?
Marcion: The First Protestant? Considered to have been an organized heretic, he taught against the Old Testament, the law, and the Sabbath. Some have considered him to be the first Protestant reformer. But was he?
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?

COGwriter

Beliefs: How Was Early Christianity Practiced?

While scholars have a variety of opinions, this page itself will simply mention the following beliefs held by true Christians in the second century, with links to highly documented articles on each subject (which are primarily based on the Bible and early historical writings).

But first, notice what one Roman Catholic writer has written:

Protestants of many traditions are now espousing recent Protestant traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own–asserting that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles, and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the “early Church essentially Protestant” in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic? (Ray, Stephen K. Upon This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 15).

Well, what if the early Church was the Church of God, which is neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic? What if that is what the Bible and early writings demonstrate?

Notice the following teachings of early Christianity–all of which are accepted by the true Church of God and only a relatively few of which are practiced/taught/still accepted by Roman Catholics or Protestants (though early leaders considered as “saints” by the Catholics also held them):

Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor.
A Binitarian view was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Deification of Christians was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental–nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter was not observed by the apostolic church.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including the use of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on the same day that the Jews observed it by all professing Christians.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church, with others being called later, though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
God’s Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians–and in the order that the Living Church of God claims they are in.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
The Virgin Birth was acknowledged by all true ante-Nicene Christians.

What About Today?

Almost none who profess Christianity hold to all of those beliefs.

The largest group (which happens to also be a “little flock”) that agrees with all the positions above, that were part of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is the Living Church of God.

And unlike most groups today, it also specifically traces its history from the Apostles through Polycarp, Polycrates, and other leaders in Asia Minor.

Those interested in learning the truth about the early and true Christian church should prayfully study the following articles:

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?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years.
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
Another Look at the Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath Did Ignatius write against the Sabbath and for Sunday? What about the Didache? What does the actual Greek reveal?
Ancient “Christian” Sermon This is believed to be the oldest complete surviving post-New Testament sermon. Have you ever read it?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?

Coin Featuring Emperor Constantine and the Pagan Sun Deity Mars Produced 317 A.D.
(Well After Constantine Professed Christ)

COGwriter

COGaIC has an interview between its David Hulme (DH below) and Paula Fredriksen (PF below) who is a Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, currently featured at its Vision website:

DH You’ve noted that the divide between Judaism and Christianity resulted from politics within the Roman Empire and Constantine’s decision in favor of Roman Christianity. Under Constantine the Sabbath was officially changed to Sunday and Christians were told not to confer with rabbis on the dating of Easter. What would Paul have made of that if he were living in that period?

PF We habitually refer to the conversion of Constantine. I think it’s more appropriate to say that under Constantine we have the conversion of Christianity. Christianity under Constantine becomes a form of imperial Roman culture. One Christian denomination is favored with his patronage. They get tax breaks. They get big, beautiful Bible codices copied at public expense. They can use the imperial post for free. They ask Constantine to kick out the leaders of the other Christian denominations in town. So the people who get the worst treatment after Constantine becomes a patron of this one church are other Christians. More Christians are persecuted after the conversion of Constantine than before, because they’re targeted by one particular branch of the church.

Paul’s first reaction to all of this would be that the type of Christianity Constantine is patronizing is very different from what Paul enunciated. The fact that Constantine’s Christianity understands itself as the only one that’s true to what Paul taught wouldn’t help the historical Paul’s shock in seeing how different Constantine’s Christianity was from his own. For one thing, when Constantine’s official biographer, Eusebius, writes about the emperor, he sees the foundation of the Christian Roman Empire as “Isaiah’s peace”—the Messianic peace promised in what we call the Old Testament. When Paul’s thinking about the kingdom of God, he’s certainly not thinking of the Roman emperor as His agent.

The truth is that the apostles kept Passover on the 14 and NOT Sunday (it was not called “Easter” back then and I really wish that David Hulme would not have used that inappropriate term). The true Christians had so many practices that differed from those accepted/enforced by Emperor Constantine that Paul and the others would not have considered Emperor Constantine and his supporters as Christian.

The fact is that Emperor Constantine WAS NOT a true Christian. True Christians do not kill. True Christians are not persecutors. True Christians do not continue to honor pagan deities.

People may be surprised to realize that the predominant idea of the Godhead accepted by over a billion people was because of the pagan Emperor Constantine. Protestant scholar H. Brown noted:

Although Constantine is usually remembered for the steps he took toward making Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire, it would not be wrong to consider him the one who inaugurated the centuries of trinitarian orthodoxy. It was he who proposed and perhaps even imposed the expression homoousis at the Council of Nicea in 325, and it was he who provided government aid to the orthodox and exerted government pressure against nonconformists (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 332-333).

But sadly, almost all the world’s so-called Christians accept non-biblical doctrines endorsed and/or proposed by Emperor Constantine.

But the true Christians never accepted his non-biblical practices or beliefs.

Do you want to obey God or men?

Articles of related interest may include:

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?
Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning Is binitarianism the correct position? What about unitarianism or trinitarianism?
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it?
Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings Are traditions on equal par with scripture? Many believe that is what Peter, John, and Paul taught. But did they?

COGwriter

Most people who claim to practice Christianity no almost nothing about what happened to the true Church in the second and third centuries.  They also do not seem to realize where the bulk of the early Christians were.

Where Were the Early Christians?

Although there were early Christians in many places, more seemed to be in Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome, Armenia, and with some even into the Celtic areas, India, Africa, and possibly China, the main early location seemed to be Asia Minor. An article of interest may be Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome.

True Christianity was apparently practiced in Jerusalem up until around 135 A.D., its second A.D. fall (which is when it ceased having Jewish bishops and changed practices to avoid imperial persecution–more details are in the article The Ephesus Church Era). By the time it first fell in 70 A.D., apparently many Christians fled to Pella, then some returned later to Jerusalem, while others went to Asia Minor and were later called Nazarenes (please see the article on The Smyrna Church Era). There is an Orthodox Church in Jerusalem which claims it is an original faithful Church, though it has beliefs different from those documented here.

Antioch was a major city essentially north of Jerusalem. The Bible records that some of the apostles met there. It was in Syria, but the current border puts it in the nation of Turkey. True Christianity was, to some degree, practiced in Antioch apparently throughout the first and second centuries, and perhaps somewhat later than that. The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church both claim they are the original faithful Church from Antioch, though both have teachings different from those documented here.

According to the New Testament, true Christianity was practiced throughout many areas of Asia Minor in the first century (this area is now in the country of Turkey). Most (between 15-17) of the 27 books of New Testament were written to or from church leaders in Asia Minor. (Even Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders recognized that Asia Minor had early “apostolic succession“.) What scripture clearly shows, is that although there were Christians in various areas, the focus for the New Testament writers were the churches in Asia Minor. And interestingly, the last book of the Bible is specifically addressed to the churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 1:4,11). The last of the original apostles to die, John, died in Asia Minor and his disciple Polycarp of Smyrna was a major leader there.

According to Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Church of God, and other sources, apostolic Christianity was practiced in Asia Minor in the second century–and those there that were true Christians were sometimes referred to as Smyrnaeans. Asia Minor is north and north-west of Antioch and Jerusalem, and was in the country now called Turkey. There are at least two churches that claim descent from Asia Minor: The Orthodox Church of Constantinople (which does not consider itself to be Protestant as it precedes the Protestant Reformation; and it remains in Constantinople, now called Istanbul) and the Living Church of God (which also does not consider itself Protestant as it precedes the Protestant Reformation; it is now headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina). The Living Church of God considers Polycrates (the late 2nd century Christian who refused to accept the authority of Roman Bishops) to have been an important and faithful leader, but the Orthodox Church is more guarded about that. Also, although the Living Church of God teaches that Polycarp is a successor to the apostles that it traces its history through, the Orthodox Church of Constantinople does not include him in their successor list, nor do any of the other Eastern “Orthodox” churches, even though they acknowledge that Polycarp was a successor to the apostles.

Alexandria is in Egypt, north Africa. It is unknown how long any true Christians were there. Certain ones have made claims that conflict with the biblical record as some claim that the Gospel writer Mark led the Church from there for 20 years (while the Bible shows Mark in different parts of the world during that time). Many non-apostolic practices, such allegorizing scripture, were promoted from this area, from even the first century. The largest Alexandrian church split in the year 451 into the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Both of those groups have many beliefs different from those documented here.

There were (and still are) true Christians in various parts of Africa and elsewhere around the world (for current groups, please see the Living Church of God Congregations page).

According to the New Testament, there was a troubled, but faithful church in Corinth in the first century. It eventually seemed to accept Roman influence.

According to the New Testament, there was a faithful church in Rome in the first century (one New Testament book was addressed to it and several were written from there), but it does not list any who later became known as “Roman bishops” as holding any office of importance there (please see the article What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About the Early Church?). There were also faithful Christians in Rome in the second century, though many heresies affected that area according to Roman Catholic, Living Church of God, and other sources. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is still the faithful Church, the one that has supremacy over all Christendom, and that it has Apostolic Succession, but it has many beliefs that differ from those documented here (please see Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God?). It is of interest to note that even many Roman Catholic scholars have long held that the Churches in Asia Minor in the second century held to the original teachings of the apostles.

Most Protestants come from groups that were affiliated with Martin Luther’s teachings and/or his departure from the Roman Church. And some groups, such as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim that the true church essentially had to begin again as essentially the Protestant reformation did not go anywhere near far enough.

According to various legends and historical writings, there were true Sabbath-keeping Christians in the Celtic areas of the British and Irish islands from perhaps the late first century until sometime after the Council of Nicea (s0me information is included in the article on The Pergamos Church Era). There is a third century report that the Apostles Thomas and Bartholomew got the gospel to India in the first century (and that perhaps Thomas went to China or Malaysia ); and there are later reports that the church in India remained opposed to the Roman Catholic Church for centuries.

Hippolytus’ third century report on where he believed the original 12 apostles, plus Paul, went to is included in the article The Ephesus Church Era.

The above information, and a whole lot more, is at The History of Early Christianity page.  That page also lists many of the beliefs of the early Christians–beliefs that most who now profess Christ do not realize or understand.

Pope Benedictus XVI

Astoundingly, Zenit.org (the Vatican’s main internet news site) reported the following:

Pope Says Dialogue Has a Purpose: Finding Truth

Greets Jews for Feast of Passover

Truth?

Let’s look a little bit into historical writings to learn the truth about Passover and Easter.

Why?

Because the truth is that what the Pope called Easter was really a mangled up and changed version of Passover!

According to the 4th century Catholic historian Epiphanius, the Catholic Church used to keep Passover on the 14th of Nisan (which would have been last night):

Audians…they choose to celebrate the Passover with the Jews–that is they contentiously celebrate the Passover at the same time as the Jews are holding their Festival of Unleavened Bread. And indeed that this used to be the church’s custom (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verses 8,11; 9,2. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 410-411).

Furthermore, the writings of the Roman Church actually show that while it changed the calculation of it from what the Bible taught, that its “Easter” is based upon the date of the 14th of Nisan.

Strangely Epiphanius wrote this about the practices of the Greco-Roman church (which we now call Roman and Orthodox Catholics, but he calls “God’s holy church”):

But God’s holy church does not miss the truth in any way in her fixing the date of this mystery. She uses not only the fourteenth day. but also the seven days which recur order of the seven days of the week…And she uses not only the fourteenth day of the lunar month, but the course of the sun as well, to keep us from observing two Passovers in one year and not even one in another. We observe the fourteenth day, then, but we wait until after the equinox and bring the end of our full observance to the sacred Lord’s day (Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section IV, Verses 3,1; 3,2; 3,3-4. Translated by Frank Williams. EJ Brill, New York, 1994, pp. 25).

Well, the Catholics most certainly do not observe Passover on the evening of the 14th unless that happens to fall when some observe an evening mass–the equinox argument is not scriptural. And since the “Lord’s Supper” is observed frequently, most practicing Catholics and Protestants do observe it more than once per year.

Notice that around the time of Epiphanius, a later Roman Emperor after he became a baptized Catholic “Christian” decreed the death penalty against those who kept Passover on the biblically proper date:

Edicts of Theodosius against the heretics, A.D. 380-394…Theodosius…decreed that…by the death of the offender; and the same capital punishment was inflicted on the Audians, or Quartodecimans, who should dare to perpetrate the atrocious crime of celebrating on an improper day the festival (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, Chapter XXVII. ca. 1776-1788).

Is killing those that followed the example of Jesus and John to observe the Passover on the 14th instead of Sunday a sign of a true Christian leader or a sign of a supporter of antichrist?

The Catholic and Orthodox saint and “doctor of the church” John Chrysostom preached the following in 387 A.D.:

In speaking about this feast of the Passover, the Law says to them something such as this: “You will not be able to keep the Passover in any of the cities which the Lord your God gives to you.” The Law bids them keep the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and in the city of Jerusalem. The Law also narrowed down the time and place for the observance of Pentecost, when it commanded them to celebrate the feast after seven weeks, and again, when it stated: “In the place which the Lord your God chooses.” So also the Law fixed the feast of Tabernacles. (4) Now let us see which of the two, time or place, is more necessary, even though neither the one nor the other has the power to save. Must we scorn the place but observe the time? Or should we scorn the time and keep the place? What I mean is something such as this. The Law commanded that the Passover be held in the first month and in Jerusalem, at a prescribed time and in a prescribed place…But the Passover comes to an end on the twenty-first of that month. If they began the feast on the fourteenth day of the first month and then continued it for seven days, they then come to the twenty-first …the Law said they must not observe those rituals outside Jerusalem (John Chrysostom. Homily IV Against the Jews IV:3-4,V:4,5. Catholic Christians of Antioch. Turning to Sabbath and The New Moon Day and Other Holy Days. 387 A.D.).

Although he is correct that the Bible specifies the dates of the Holy Days (thus his church should never have changed it, as they did in the second century because of cowardice and hatred), John Chrysostom is incorrect that Jerusalem is the only place.

That is never taught in the law.

To the contrary, the Jews were not even in Jerusalem when God listed the holy days in the books of Exodus and Leviticus (Jerusalem was not taken by the children of Israel until after the death of Joshua, see Judges 1:1-8).

It is also clear from the testimonies of Polycarp, Melito, Apollinaris, and Polycrates, that the New Testament second century Christians observed Passover outside of Jerusalem, as they ALL lived in Asia Minor and none lived in Jerusalem.

The fifth century historian Socrates Scholasticus noted:

In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon…Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the observance of the fourteenth day was delivered to them by the apostle John (Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter XXII. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Amazingly, the Roman and Orthodox Catholic saint John Chrysostom preached the following in 387 A.D.:

The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us … 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…If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, our are lies…Does God hate their festivals and do you share in them? He did not say this or that festival, but all of them together. (John Chrysostom. Homily I Against the Jews I:5;VI:5;VII:2. Preached at Antioch, Syria in the Fall of 387 AD. Medieval Sourcebook: Saint John Chrysostom (c.347-407) : Eight Homilies Against the Jews. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html 12/10/05).

What a strange admission! The truth is that Easter and Pentecost, which the Catholics claim to keep, are based upon the so-called “Jewish feasts” (they should instead be called God’s Holy Days).

Also notice that Pope Benedict yesterday claimed that the Jewish were of value. Furthermore, notice what the Pope stated about the “Jewish feasts” last Fall:

“These festivities,” the Holy Father wrote, “can be occasions for many blessings from the Eternal and a source of immense joy, so that the will to promote the peace that the world so greatly needs will grow within each one of us. May God in his goodness protect your community and grant that the friendship between us deepen, in this city of Rome and everywhere.” (see Pope Praises God’s Holy Days?)

Since the Pontiff seems to feel that the “Jewish feasts” are venerable, and one of a relatively few “doctors of the Roman Church” said that if they are venerable, then the Catholic holidays are lies, this thus suggests that the changes that the Catholics imposed upon them ARE LIES!

Of course, so does the Bible and the record of history.

The truth is that because of cowardice and tradition (please see Passover and the Early Church), the Roman Church adopted Easter instead of the Biblical Passover.

If the Pontiff was interested in the truth, he would advocate the observance of the seven days of unleavened bread which begin tonight at sunset.

Does anyone really think that the Pope is truly interested in dialoging on this subject so that he can tell the world the truth?

If so, I would be interested in publicly discussing this with him.

Those interested in learning more of the truth on these matters should consider studying their Bibles and reading the following:

Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins?
Melito’s Homily on the Passover This is one of the earliest Christian writings about the Passover. This also includes what Apollinaris wrote on the Passover as well.
Should Christians Keep the Days of Unleavened Bread? Do they have any use or meaning now? This article supplies some biblical answers.
Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
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.
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Orthodox Church and the Living Church of God Both groups have some amazing similarities and some major differences. Do you know what they are?
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 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?