Ecumenical meeting in Nicea planned for 2025: What happened in 325 and what could happen in/by 2025?

Artist Interpretation of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.


As the result of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople meeting last week, they have announced an intended ecumenical meeting in honor of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.:

Istanbul (AsiaNews) – On his return from Jerusalem , where he met with Pope Francis at the Holy Sepulchre, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, has revealed an important appointment for unity between Catholics and Orthodox: a gathering at Nicaea in 2025, where the first real ecumenical council of the undivided Church was celebrated.

Speaking exclusively with AsiaNews, Bartholomew says that together with Pope Francis “we agreed to leave as a legacy to ourselves and our successors a gathering in Nicaea in 2025, to celebrate together, after 17 centuries , the first truly ecumenical synod, where the Creed was first promulgated”.,-we-invite-all-Christians-to-celebrate-the-first-synod-of-Nicaea-in-2025-31213.html

As far as the Creed goes, you may wish to check out the article What Was the Original Apostles’ Creed? What is the Nicene Creed?

The Atlantic made the following statements about Nicea for 2025 and 325:

Mark your calendars: In 2025, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians may return to Nicaea, the spot in modern-day Turkey where Christianity was literally defined. In 325, early followers of Jesus came together to figure out what it means to be a Christian; the goal was to create theological consensus across all of Christendom.

That is simply not case regarding 325 A.D.  What happened was that the sun-god worshiping Emperor Constantine declared himself an unbaptized unordained bishop and summoned Greco-Roman bishops under imperial threat to attend a meeting he convened.

It did not represent “all Christendom” as no Church of God leaders attended.  But that council, and subsequent ones, did result in the adoption of doctrines that the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants ended up accepting.  Several of which were not held by the original apostles or their faithful followers.

It was about one year after conquering the Eastern Empire (thus resurrecting the combined Roman Empire) the sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. That Council declared:

1) The Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was to be the Christian Sabbath.

2) Rules regarding seasonal prayers, penance, and indulgences.

3) That the Greco-Romans believed that Jesus was one substance with God the Father.

4) Passover would be on Sunday and not the biblical date of Nisan 14.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that this Council did not prohibit pagan sun-worship, but instead decreed that true Christians should not keep the seventh-day Sabbath nor should they be allowed to keep Passover on the 14th.

Here is some of what the Catholic historian Epiphanius wrote in the mid-4th Century:

…the emperor…convened a council of 318 bishops…in the city of Nicea…They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God’s holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people…

Eventually, those in parts of Europe (e.g. Britain and Germany) changed the name from Passover to Easter (Ostern in German). Easter and Ostern are other names for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (which can be pronounced as Easter), the so-called queen of heaven (also called Ashtaroth in the Bible in 1 Samuel 12:10). The “Queen of Heaven” is also a title that has been associated with Europa, for whom the continent of Europe is named.

 The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to claim:

1170 At the Council of Nicea in 325, all the Churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon (14 Nisan) after the vernal equinox.

This simply is not really true, and it should not be taught in the modern Catechism. Passover was still kept on the correct day by the scattered faithful church and always has been, since the time of Christ. The fact that the Emperor got an agreement from those he summoned did not change the Bible (or its truly faithful followers).

It should be noted that it is understood, even by some Catholic scholars, that “Judeo-Christian” churches were not represented on at that Council. Notice what Priest Bellarmino Bagatti wrote:

…the inhabitants of Syria, of Cilicia and of Mesopotamia were still celebrating Easter {Passover} with the Jews…

The importance of the matters to be discussed and the great division that existed had led Constantine to bring together a big number of bishops, including confessors of the faith, in order to give the impression that the whole of Christendom was represented.

In fact…the churches of Jewish stock had had no representation…From this we can conclude that no Judaeo-Christian bishop participated in the Council.  Either they were not invited or they declined to attend.  And so the capitulars had a free hand to establish norms for certain practices without meeting opposition or hearing other view points. Once the road was open future Councils would continue on these lines, thus deepening the breach between the Christians of two-stocks.  The point of view of the Judaeo-Christians, devoid of Greek philosophical formation, was that of keeping steadfast to the Testimonia, and therefore not to admit any word foreign to the Bible, including Homoousion.

So, there were Christians who believed in basing doctrine only on the Bible, but they did not attend Nicea or any of the later Councils. Mainly, if not only, those who seemed to accept “Greek philosophical formation” attended. Thus, no true Christian should consider that these Councils were called of God.

Eusebius recorded the following details about Constantine convening that Council:

But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter{Passover}. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those…

Then as if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters, in letters expressive of the honorable estimation in which he held them. Nor was this merely the issuing of a bare command but the emperor’s good will contributed much to its being carried into effect: for he allowed some the use of the public means of conveyance, while he afforded to others an ample supply of horses for their transport.  The place, too, selected for the synod, the city Nicæa in Bithynia… In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled… Constantine is the first prince of any age who bound together such a garland as this with the bond of peace, and presented it to his Saviour as a thank-offering for the victories he had obtained over every foe, thus exhibiting in our own times a similitude of the apostolic company…

The result was that they were not only united as concerning the faith, but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter was agreed on by all…

What was the justification for this, or for Eusebius calling those who kept biblical practices “this enemy”?

Well, although the word Pascha (which means Passover) is mistranslated as Easter above and below, Constantine clearly felt that the Jews were detestable and that he did not want his church to follow practices like theirs. Notice what Constantine declared:

At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter {Passover} was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present, that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. For what can be more becoming or honorable to us than that this feast from which we date our hopes of immortality, should be observed unfailingly by all alike, according to one ascertained order and arrangement? And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. For we have it in our power, if we abandon their custom, to prolong the due observance of this ordinance to future ages, by a truer order, which we have preserved from the very day of the passion until the present time. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way. A course at once legitimate and honorable lies open to our most holy religion. Beloved brethren, let us with one consent adopt this course, and withdraw ourselves from all participation in their baseness.

It perhaps should be noted that Jesus kept Passover on the 14th.   Calling the “Jewish crowd” detestable is not appropriate for real Christians. Jesus did not implement Sunday Passover as a “different way.” This is further evidence that those who are following Constantine’s decrees are not following those made by a true Christian.

The Catholic Epiphanius, himself, actually admitted that the church used to observe the 14th for Passover when he wrote:

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.

Thus, Epiphanius seemed to realize that Passover on the 14th was the original Passover date, even for the early Greco-Romans, since he wrote “this used to be the church’s custom.”  See also the article The Passover Plot.

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.

So some scholars basically admit that the initial acceptance of the trinity was forced upon professing Christians by a sun-worshiping Emperor who appointed himself as a bishop (so much for that “apostolic succession”), and who proposed something that ultimately became (in 381 A.D.) the trinitarian doctrine very similar to that which the Roman Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants now teach.

Since Constantine had been a follower of Mithras, the idea of a trinitarian deity was something he and other pagans had been familiar with. L.L. Paine noted:

Mithra, who was originally subordinate to Ormuzd, and even reduced to the third place in the triad, subsequently rose practically to the first place, supplanting Ormuzd himself. Such a process, by which the mediating member of the trinity, as the special friend and savior of men, should become first and nearest in the thoughts, and affections, and hopes of men, and hence in time first in the divine order of the gods, is most natural, and we have already found it a marked feature of the historical evolution of most of the Ethnic trinities. Thus in the Babylonian triad Marduk, the mediating sun-god, usurps the place of Ea, his father. The same was true of Vishnu-Krishna in the Hindoo trinity, who, in his capacity of god- man and mediator, reduced Brahma to almost a shadow. So Mithraism pushed Ormuzd back into a place of inferiority, or rather he was quietly displaced and forgotten.

Notice the following, which Dr. Brown wrote, and which many Catholic/ Protestant/Orthodox theologians seem to accept:

The concept of three persons (hypostases)…or homooussia…the doctrine of the Trinity…will never be understood by humans in any full sense.  It will always remain a mystery…

Actually, those of us in the Continuing Church of God see no real mystery here. The Greco-Roman churches had doctrinal confusion. A pagan Emperor came up with an idea. The idea was developed further by the Greco-Roman confederation. It later was enforced by various Roman emperors upon Rome’s subjects. The fact that the Bible teaches that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) provides scriptural support for the view that the Greco-Roman trinity is a human invention and the historical records document this to those who are willing to see it.  See also the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?

Notice what a former priest wrote about Constantine:

Constantine…No one was ever more devoted to than he to the sun god, Sol…Emperor Constantine never relinquished his title of Pontifex Maximus, head of the pagan state cult…Twice married, he murdered Crispus his son by his first wife, in 326. He had his second wife drowned in the bath; killed his eleven year old nephew, then his brother-in-law, after giving him assurances of safe conduct under oath…

Constantine was a soldier at a time when shedding blood was unacceptable to the church… When Constantine called bishops his beloved brethren and styled himself ‘Bishop of Bishops’, which popes later appropriated, he was not a Christian, not even a catechumen. Yet no one remotely approached his stature and authority. Even the Bishop of Romewas in comparison, a non-entity…All bishops agreed that he was ‘the inspired oracle, the apostle of Church wisdom’…

It is another paradox of history that it was Constantine, a pagan, who invented the idea of a council of all Christian communities…At Nicaea the Founding Father of Ecumenical Councils gathered 300 hundred bishops, having laid on free transport…Maybe he simply wanted to show that he was in charge. He proposed what came to be called ‘the orthodox view’ of God’s Son being ‘of one substance’ with the Father. All dissident bishops caved in, except for two whom Constantine promptly deposed and sent packing…His cynical use of Christ, in which everyone including the Roman Bishop acquiesced, meant a profound falsification of the Gospel message and the injection of standards alien to it. (De Rosa, pp. 35,36,43,44)

A committed sun god/Mithras devotee came up with the orthodox view of the Godhead.  See also Do You Practice Mithraism?

A Possible Judeo-Christian Report of Constantine’s Council of Nicea

A 10th-11th century Islamic Arab document professes to have a Judeo-Christian perspective of the Council of Nicea. Here is some of what Shlomo Pines summarized from that Arabic report of that Council and one that preceded it:

Constantine called a gathering of Christian monks with a view to the formulation of obligatory religious beliefs…However, some of them disagreed with this text…There was a scission and the symbol of faith which had been formulated was not regarded as valid.

Thereupon, three hundred and eighteen men gathered in Nicaea and formulated a symbol of faith, which was accepted and made obligatory by Constantine. People who dissented from it were killed and professions of faith differing from it suppressed.

In this way people who professed the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible; they worshipped the cross, observed the Roman religious rites and ate pork.  Those who did not eat it were killed. (Pines, pp. 32,43)

So, according to an Islamic reporter, there were Christians who were upset by the changes that Emperor Constantine enforced, such as crosses and Roman religious rites. Furthermore, the same reporter stated that the “Jewish Christians” denounced the use of incense in Christian churches as “an adaptation of a Pagan custom” and that they had to become a clandestine group.

Under Constantine and his Nicean Council Mainstream “Christianity,” “Constantinian Christianity,” Emerged

A few years after the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine took bold persecuting action against those that would not accept his preferred religion which was a combination of pagan and sun-worshiping practices with the name Christianity.

To enforce persecution against Christians who did not accept Constantine’s doctrines, around 332 A.D. Constantine issued what is known as the Edict Against the Heretics:

Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics. “Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one’s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one’s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?

“FORASMUCH, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. (1) We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public.”

Some of those referred to as Paulians (Paulicians) and Cataphrygians were part of the original Church of God, thus they were not the heretics. Just because the Emperor had military might, does not make his declarations right (cf. Revelation 13:4-9; 17:1-6).  See also the article Persecutions by Church and State.

Regarding this early time period, the theological historian Bart Ehrman noted:

By the early fourth century, Christianity had almost completely separated from Judaism, the religion of Jesus and his apostles…By early fourth century, non-Jewish Christianity had become a major world religion. (Ehrman B. From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Part 2. The Teaching Company, Chantilly (VA), 2004, p. 47)

The church councils, first started by Emperor Constantine, really ended up with a new religion, which could be called “Constantinian Christianity.” Constantinian Christianity included elements of Greco-Roman compromises, a church-state alliance, and pagan elements synchronized to become the religion of the State.

Perhaps it should be mentioned, that according to Orthodox sources, at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, “There is no mention of the bishop of Constantinople due to the fact that this “see” was as yet an insignificant little town” (Patsovas L. The Primacy of the See of Constantinople in Theory and Practice.  © 2010 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, viewed 02/09/10).  But many of the Orthodox and others will overlook that.

Now, what will be the result of the planned 2025 Council of Nicea?

As far as can be determined, both Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew hope that greater ecumenical unity will occur between their respective organizations.

According to an Eastern Orthodox prophet the final (the Orthodox recognize seven previous ones) ecumenical synod council satisfies what “heretics” want:

Saint Neilos the Myrrh-Gusher (died 1592): During that time the Eighth and last Ecumenical Synod will take place, which will satisfy the contentions of the heretics…(Tzima Otto, p. 111).

By satisfying “heretics”, clearly this council compromises and changes the religion, which will be called “Catholic.”  If heretics are truly heretics, should their complaints be satisfied?

Will that happen in, before, or near 2025?  It very well may.  The Orthodox have called for an eighth ecumenical council in 2016, which could be this (see Orthodox agree to eighth ecumenical council: If Orthodox prophecy is correct on it, this council marks a major step towards the end!).  But if not, it may be in near or by 2025 some type of council will result in the type of ecumenical unity that Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew wants.

The result of the original Council of Nicea were terrible and there is no reason to believe that a possible meeting there in 2025 will result in true good.

The Bible teaches that the only true unity of the faith will happen AFTER the false ecumenical movement is eliminated which happens with the return of Jesus Christ (e.g. Zechariah 2:6-11).

What certain Catholic and Orthodox leaders are trying to do is not the will of God.  Various Protestants are also involved in this as well.

Some items of related interest may include:

Why Should American Catholics Fear Unity with the Orthodox? Are the current ecumenical meetings a good thing or will they result in disaster? Is doctrinal compromise good? Here is a link to a related video Should you be concerned about the ecumenical movement?
Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics Unity between these groups will put them in position to be part of the final end time Babylon that the Bible warns against as well as require improper compromise.
Beware: Protestants Going Towards Ecumenical Destruction! What is going on in the Protestant world? Are Protestants turning back to their ‘mother church’ in Rome? Does the Bible warn about this? What are Catholic plans and prophecies related to this? Is Protestantism doomed? See also the video Charismatic Kenneth Copeland and Anglican Tony Palmer: Protestants Beware!
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differ from most Protestants How the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background. As far as some changes affecting Protestantism, watch the video Charismatic Kenneth Copeland and Anglican Tony Palmer: Protestants Beware!
United Nations: Humankind’s Last Hope or New World Order? Is the UN the last hope for humanity? Or might its goals end up with sinister results? A related video would be United Nations and Vatican Are Planning the New World Order.
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Continuing 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 do deus?]
Some Similarities and Differences Between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Continuing 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?
Passover and the Early Church Did the early Christians observe Passover? What did Jesus and Paul teach? Why did Jesus die for our sins? There is also a detailed YouTube video available titled History of the Christian Passover.
The Passover Plot What was the first Passover plot? Which plots have Islam and the Greco-Roman faiths perpetuated about Passover? A sermon video of related interest is The Passover Plots, Including Easter.
Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity? Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD.
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. December 25th was celebrated as his birthday. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity? A sermon video from Vatican City is titled Church of Rome, Mithras, and Isis?
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur. Will those with the cross be the persecutors or the persecuted–this article has the shocking answer. There is also a YouTube video sermon you can watch: The Coming Persecution of the Church. Here is information in the Spanish language: Persecuciones de la Iglesia y el Estado.
Some Doctrines of Antichrist Are there any doctrines taught outside the Churches of God which can be considered as doctrines of antichrist? This article suggests at least three. It also provides information on 666 and the identity of “the false prophet.” Plus it shows that several Catholic writers seem to warn about an ecumenical antipope that will support heresy. You can also watch a video titled What Does the Bible teach about the Antichrist?
Could Pope Francis be the Last Pope and Antichrist? According to some interpretations of the prophecies of the popes by the Catholic saint and Bishop Malachy, Pope Francis I is in the position of “Peter the Roman,” the pontiff who reigns during tribulations until around the time of the destruction of Rome. Do biblical prophecies warn of someone that sounds like Peter the Roman? Could Francis I be the heretical antipope of Catholic private prophecies and the final Antichrist of Bible prophecy? This is a YouTube video.
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from c. 31 A.D. to 2014. A related sermon link would be Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D.
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. It also discusses the concept of church eras. There is also a YouTube video: The Seven Church Eras of Revelation.
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. Is telling the truth about the early church citing Catholic accepted sources anti-Catholic? 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. There is also a YouTube sermon on the subject titled Church of God or Church of Rome: What Do Catholic Scholars Admit About Early Church History?
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Who were the Nazarene Christians? What did they believe? Should 21st century Christians be modern Nazarenes? Is there a group that exists now that traces its history through the Nazarenes and holds the same beliefs today? Here is a link to a related video sermon Nazarene Christians: Were the early Christians “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! Here is a version in the Spanish language La sucesión apostólica. ¿Ocurrió en Roma, Alejandría, Constantinopla, Antioquía, Jerusalén o Asia Menor?
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
What Was the Original Apostles’ Creed? What is the Nicene Creed? Did the original apostles write a creed? When was the first creed written? Are the creeds commonly used by the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics original?

Get news like the above sent to you on a daily basis

Your email will not be shared. You may unsubscribe at anytime.