(Photo of Ancient Ephesus by Joyce Thiel)
Former Church of God (COG) member Lonnie Hendrix, now a frequent anti-COG critic, posted the following:
The Real Story of the First One Hundred Years of the Church
Shortly after Herbert Armstrong became affiliated with the Church of God, Seventh-Day in Oregon, two of his associates collaborated in writing A History of the True Religion From 33 A.D. to Date. … these folks have insisted on claiming that there has always been a group of Christians who kept the Sabbath – from the Church’s foundation up to the present time. The premise is that those Sabbath-keeping folks constituted the “true” Church down through history, and that all Sunday-keeping Christians represent a “false” brand of the faith. …
Nazarenes constituted the “true” Christians – everyone else was an apostate!
Next, we will take a brief look at the self-proclaimed Armstrong Church of God expert on the early history of the Church, Bob Thiel. …
Unfortunately, all of this Church “history” from Dugger and Dodd to Bob Thiel is inaccurate and misleading – and I’m being generous! Instead of historically accurate accounts of Church history, these men have carefully crafted historical fiction and propaganda to support their narrative that they alone represent the “TRUE” Church.
Now, do what I, Bob Thiel of the Continuing Church of God, teach about the first 100 years of Christianity accurate?
According to Greco-Roman Catholic and Protestant scholastic sources, yes, it is accurate.
For example, did you know that it was the written position of late 20th century Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou that church history has generally been mistaught and missed many aspects of what he called Jewish Christianity? He specifically wrote that this has led to a “false picture of Christian history” (Daniélou J, Cardinal. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminster Press, 1964, Philadelphia, p. 2).
And while there are issues with aspects of his research, he was correct that the vast majority have not been properly taught the truth of church history and overlooked the fact that Christianity is more “Jewish” than what is accepted by most of the mainstream churches. Sadly in the 21st century, many seem to prefer the false version of history rather than the real one.
Cardinal Daniélou’s view is also consistent with the following writing from the Greco-Roman Catholic ‘father of church history’ Eusebius:
2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision. (Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 5. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).
Notice that these early bishops “received the knowledge of Christ in purity,” hence their teachings should have continued. Jesus’ half-brother Jude admonished Christians:
3 … to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
Now consider that Jesus was killed and resurrected as early as 31 A.D. to as late as 35 A.D.
So, let’s say that the first 100 years of Christianity last until 135 A.D.
The Greek Orthodox put out the following:
1. James the brother of God +62 2. Symeon +106-107 3. Justus 1st or Judas to 111 4. Zacheos 111-134 5. Tobias “” 6. Benjamin I “” 7. John I “” 8. Matthias I “” 9. Philip “” 10. Seneca “” 11. Justus II “” 12. Levi “” 13. Ephraim “” 14. Joseph I “” 15. Judas “” https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/patriarch/apostolic-succession/ viewed 1 May 2026
Notice also something from the noted historian E. Gibbon:
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. …
The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.
They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian ...
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites … The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away either into the church or the synagogue …
It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).
According all theological scholars I am aware of (and I have read from many), those bishops of Jerusalem were there through 135 A.D.–the first 100 years!
And those there kept the Sabbath, kept the biblical Holy Days, and did not eat biblically unclean meat.
One of the things they did was keep Passover on the 14th of Nisan.
That is also the position of all theological historical scholars.
Let me add that because of the Bar Kochba revolt of the Jews from 130-135 A.D., Emperor Hadrian declared that those with Jewish practices, like the Sabbath, avoiding unclean meat. and keeping Passover on the 14th, could no longer live in Jerusalem.
The 20th century historian Salo W. Barron wrote:
Hadrian . . . According to rabbinic sources, he prohibited public gatherings for instruction in Jewish law, forbade the proper observance of the Sabbath and holidays and outlawed many important rituals (Barron SW. Social and Religious History of the Jews, Volume 2: Christian Era: the First Five Centuries. Columbia University Press, 1952, p. 107).
The Christians in Judea were forced to make a decision. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God’s law and flee, or they could compromise and support a religious leader (Marcus) who would not keep the Sabbath, etc. Many, because of Emperor Hadrian in Jerusalem, Rome, and elsewhere made the wrong decision–which was basically based on cowardice–many of them switched to Sunday weekly services, changed Passover to Sunday, and began to eat biblically unclean animals.
Yet, the faithful, under the leadership of Judas (the last of the bishops in the list by Eusebius, more commonly known as Judas Kyraikos) would not do so and they fled Jerusalem. This Judas was a relative of Jesus (see Judas Kyriakos vs. Marcus of Jerusalem: Which was an apostolic successor and which was an apostate?).
What about faithful Christians elsewhere?
Some reportedly went to Edessa and Mesopotamia (for details, see Early Christianity in Edessa and the Church of the East).
But the main body of faithful Christians in the second century, after 135 A.D., look to have been in Asia Minor.
In his post, Lonnie Hendrix had the following quote from me:
The last of the original apostles to die, John, died in Asia Minor and his disciple Polycarp of Smyrna was a major leader there. Those there also taught the true gospel of the kingdom and opposed others who promoted a different gospel. There were actually two major groups that claimed Christianity in the late second century that claimed succession from the apostles, and only one of them has remained faithful –l–for some further details, please see Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?”
Yes, Polycarp was ordained by the original apostles in the first century and was leading the COG from Smyrna in Asia Minor into the second century A.D.
Herbert W. Armstrong wrote:
It is significant that after his release John trained Polycarp elder of Smyrna, a city near Ephesus in the province of Asia. … At neighboring Smyrna, Polycarp presided over the Church of God for half a century after John’s death. Polycarp stood up boldly for the truth while many fell away and began having fellowship with the Catholic bishops of Rome. History relates that following the example of Peter, Paul and John, Polycarp wrote many letters to congregations and individuals, though all these have perished, save one in an edited version. (Armstrong HW. The Church They Couldn’t Destroy. Good News, December 1981)
While people like Lonnie Hendrix tend to discount Herbert W. Armstrong, Herbert Armstrong did not make that up. Here is a quote from the late second century theological writer Tertullian:
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum; Chapter 32. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Notice that the faithful Christians in Smyrna of Asia Minor claimed apostolic succession from John through Polycarp, and there was another group with ties to Rome.
It should also be pointed out that around the same time that Tertullian wrote, COG leader Polycrates of Ephesus wrote a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, pointed to Polycarp and others, and told Victor that the faithful always kept Passover on the 14th and he and those with him would not change:
We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead ? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘ We ought to obey God rather than man’…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7 . Translated by A. Cushman McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 114).
Note that Polycrates:
1) Claimed to be a follower of the teachings passed on from the Apostle John
2) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
3) Relied on the position that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
4) Claimed that he was being faithful to the teachings passed down to him
5) Was then the spokesperson for many in Asia Minor
6) Claimed he and his predecessors observed the time of unleavened bread
7) Refused to accept the authority of Roman tradition over the Bible
8) Refused to accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome–he preferred to be separate (cf. Revelation 18:4)
9) Claimed that his life was to be governed by Jesus and not opinions of men
Anyway, there were two major groups professing Christianity at this time.
This is not just from the writings of Tertullian and Polycrates, notice something from my article, Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups that Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?, that Lonnie Hendrix, pointed to:
It seems clear that many in the 21st century do not realize that according to many claimed as early supporters of the Roman/Alexandrian churches, there were two groups, two types, of allegedly faithful Christians.
Essentially, there were the real Christians that had ties to the apostles John and Philip in Asia Minor and Peter in Antioch, and others associated with the Greco-Roman confederation that was mainly made up of the allegoristic churches that emerged in the second century in Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome.
The understanding that there were two groups (though not both always considered to be faithful) was the position of several in the second and third centuries, including many considered to be saints by the Catholics of Rome as well as the Eastern Orthodox such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Origen, and Serapion.
Various later historians also seemed to understand some of the truth on this matter. Do you?
Here is a summary for those mainly interested in just a few basic facts, starting with four biblical leaders:
Jesus taught that there would be a large group that would go the wrong way and a few that went the right way (Matthew 7:13-14), which He called “the little flock’ (Luke 12:32).
The Apostle Paul warned against mixing theology with those who used non-biblical practices (1 Corinthians 10:20-21), yet claimed to be Christian.
The Apostle John said there were those who would accept his doctrines and other groups that would not (1 John 2:18-19; cf. 3 John 9-12). Those in the genuine Church of God have continued with the doctrines that he taught.
Jude wrote that it would be necessary to contend for the original faith as there were those who strayed from it (Jude 3-4,12). Some added rituals, whereas others kept to the original ‘liturgy’ (see What was the Liturgy of the Early Church?).
Cerinthus was a first century heretic who taught allegorizing of scripture, that non-biblical tradition was more important than scripture, blended Gnostic teachings with the Bible, claimed to be an apostle, and claimed that angels gave him messages. History records that he was condemned by the Apostle John.
Marcus (c. 135), the first non-Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem, told people that because of the edicts of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that they would not be allowed into Jerusalem unless they abandoned original Christian practices like the Sabbath. Those unwilling to change separated from those who did. Hence, there were two groups in Judea by the second century.
Justin (c. 135), who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, taught that there were Christians in Asia Minor who had Jewish practices like the Holy Days and the Ten Commandments, but that he did not care to associate with them. Justin also seemed to accept the false “Gospel of Peter”, which the true Christians never did. Hence there were two groups in Asia Minor in the second century–one under the direction of faithful leaders such as Bishop Polycarp and others who more were independent like Justin. Apparently, the true Christians in Asia Minor (who were apparently the majority at that time) did not care to associate with those like Justin either, so Justin went to Rome.
Hegessipus (c. 150), who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, taught that there were two groups in Jerusalem in the early second century. The faithful one and those affected somehow by
Simon Magus.Bishop/Pastor Polycarp (c. 156) taught that Passover was to be observed on the 14th of Nisan, while Bishop Anicetus of Rome accepted Sunday (which came to be known in English as Easter). Hence, there were two different, but significant, groups in the second century: one mainly affiliated with Rome and one mainly affiliated with Asia Minor. Polycarp of Smyrna also denounced heretics such as Marcion and Valentinus who had association with the Church of Rome.
Irenaeus, who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, wrote that there were two groups with differing dates for Passover, and that Polycarp’s group was faithful.
Bishop/Pastor Polycrates (c. 192) told Roman Bishop Victor that he and those in Asia Minor were not concerned about frightful words from Rome that differed from the Bible related to Passover and he kept the same practice as the apostles like John. Hence, those in Asia Minor made it clear in the latter portion of the second century that they were separate from Rome. Hence, there was a separation of the faithful mainly in Asia Minor and the confederation that was emerging between Rome, Alexandria, and the changed church in Jerusalem.
According to Tertullian (“the father of Latin theology,” c. 200), there were two groups of who claimed Christ that claimed ties to the original apostles: those associated with Rome and those associated with Asia Minor (see also Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).
According to Clement of Alexandria (late second century) and Origen of Alexandria (early third century), there were two groups who claimed Christianity: the mystic/allegorical group (that they were part of) and the non-mystic/non-allegorical group. Rome supported the Alexandrians (and still somewhat supports them), while those in Asia Minor and Antioch did not accept them.
According to Justin, one group adopted a mystical Eucharist, that according to Tertullian was similar to practices associated with Mithraism. Something like this was condemned by Irenaeus in the later portion of the second century and was not the practice of the Asia Minor group.
Asia Minor leaders such as Bishop Thraseas of Eumenia (probably around A.D. 157), Bishop Apollonius of Ephesus (third century), and Bishop Apollinaris of Hierapolis (third century) denounced the Montanists, yet leaders in Rome and Egypt accepted the Montanists until some time in the third century.
According to Bishop Serapion of Antioch, there true Christians did not accept the falsely named “Gospel of Peter,” but there were false groups who did (more on where the Bible came from is in the free online book Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?). He also warned of a growing “lying confederacy.”
According to the African Bishop Nepos (third century), there were people in Alexandria/Egypt who accepted allegory over scripture (see also What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?), regarding the coming millennium, but he opposed their position.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., Origen ran the theological school of Alexandria, a college that promoted allerory–and Origen is considered to be great by the Greco-Roman Catholics. Whereas Lucian of Antioch ran the school of Antioch in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, a college that promoted the literal understanding of scripture. Lucian is in the apostolic succession list of the Church of God (see Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?).
Many false doctrines were introduced or promoted by a 3rd century person who went to the Alexandrian school named Gregory the Wonder Worker. Gregory claimed to see apparitions of Mary and the Apostle John, which of course, could not have been them. Gregory was NOT faithful to the Bible or many of the teachings and practices of the Apostle John.
Emperor Constantine decreed that those in Jerusalem who still would not eat biblically unclean animals should be killed. Hence, he acknowledged that there were still two groups in Judea in the 4th century–the faithful and his group.
Emperor Theodosius decreed that those who held to the original position of the apostles on Passover would be killed. Hence, there still were two professing groups with differing approaches and practices near the end of the fourth century.
Grwo-Roman Catholic writers such as Jerome and Epiphanius observed that there were two groups in the fourth century.
Although all scholars recognize that early Christians would not kill others or participate in carnal warfare, after Emperor Constantine Roman bishops endorsed killing and other forms of persecution against those not part of their group.
Those who claimed ties to the original Nazarene Christians of the Bible and Jerusalem were long persecuted by Greco-Romans (see Persecutions by Church and State), but their “heresies”, according to even some affiliated with Rome, were mainly to stick to original Christian practices while not accepting the decisions of Imperial and other Greco-Roman councils to change doctrine.
(Note: I used included the term “bishop” above to show that there were those in leadership positions in both groups–even though there were no proven bishops of Rome nor Alexandria until over 100 years after Jesus died: for historical information on this, see the articles What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? and Apostolic Succession.)
Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) the following:
The Origin of Christianity
September 12, 2024
Today the concept of “Jewish Christians” may sound like a confusion of two religions. However, to understand the origin of Christianity, one must begin with the population of Jewish Christians who lived during Jesus’ lifetime. In the November/December 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Dead Sea Scroll and early Christianity scholar Geza Vermes explored the origin of Christianity by examining the characteristics of the Jewish Jesus movement to see how it developed into a distinctly gentile religion.
In the New Testament, Jesus only preaches to a Jewish audience. …
After the crucifixion, the apostles began to champion a new faith in Jesus and the ranks of the Jesus movement (known as “the Way” at the time) swelled to 3,000 Jewish converts. At first, these followers were distinctly Jewish, following Mosaic law, Temple traditions and dietary customs. …
As gentiles joined the Jesus movement, focus on Jewish law decreased and we start to see the origin of Christianity as a distinct religion. Jewish Christians in Jerusalem participated in separate Jewish services from the gentile Christian population, and while the two groups agreed on Jesus’ message and importance, the separate rites and communities led to increasing division between the groups. …
Geza Vermes presents the late first century C.E. Jewish Christian Didache as an important text for understanding the Jewish Jesus movement. The Christian document focuses on Mosaic Law and the love of God and the neighbor, and describes the observance of Jewish traditions alongside baptism and the recitation of “Our Father.” The Didache treats Jesus as a charismatic prophet, …
By contrast, the early second century Epistle of Barnabas shows a distinctly gentile Christianity in its presentation of the Hebrew Bible as allegory instead of covenantal fact. The clearly divinized Jesus in this document is distanced from the Jewish Christians and the divide between the Christian communities continued to widen over time. Geza Vermes writes that after Hadrian’s suppression of the Second Jewish Revolt, the Jewish Christians quickly became a minority group in the newly established church. At this point we can see the origin of Christianity as a distinctly non-Jewish religion; late in the second century, the Jewish Christians either rejoined their Jewish peers or become part of the newly gentile Christian church.
So, according to BAR, there were two groups.
One that was the original faith, That faith kept law (which would have included the Sabbath and the Holy Days) and did not eat unclean meat. The Apostle Jude wrote that Christians are “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And the truly faithful did not change to a different faith.
Yet, the other group that BAR mentioned was changed and different.
When the Apostle John, for example, wrote the Book of Revelation, he was the last of the original 12 apostles to remain alive (and as an Apostle he ALSO would have been what was part of the foundation of the church as Ephesians 2:19-22 teaches). And he specifically addressed Revelation “to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Revelation 1:4), and later listed those seven (vs. 1:11) all of which were in Asia Minor (here is an article on The Seven Churches of Revelation). He also never positively addressed the church in Rome in that or any other of his known writings (nor, except in his gospel account, did he ever mention Peter). Furthermore, The Catholic Encyclopedia records this about John,
John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body…the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province (Fonck L. Transcribed by Michael Little. St. John the Evangelist. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
But there is no scriptural reason to think that John only considered that the churches in Asia Minor were under his leadership. Actually, in one of his other letters, John also wrote “To the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1)–which appears to be a reference to the entire Church (see also Revelation 12:17). Hence he felt he had a leadership position related to the entire Church, not just those in Asia Minor.
John had a disciple named Polycarp who became the bishop of Smyrna. While Ignatius may have had prominence in-between, his writings clearly endorsed Polycarp’s leadership. Polycarp was probably 25-30 years old when John died. Polycarp himself lived until he was martyred around 156 A.D. Look at what else is admitted by the Greco-Roman Catholic historian Irenaeus about the early Church in Asia Minor, under the leadership of Polycarp:
Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).
So we have from this Roman Catholic source that Polycarp and his successors in Asia Minor (at least until the time that Irenaeus wrote this, around 180 A.D.) practiced the true teachings that they learned from the apostles (it should be noted that these churches had several doctrines that differ from those currently held by the Roman Church, some of which are documented in the article Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).
The one in Asia Minor was considered to practice Jewish Christianity according to various Roman Catholic scholars (e.g. Daniélou J, Cardinal. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminister Press, 1964, Philadelphia).
As it turns out many Protestant writers tend to believe in an unbiblical view as the following shows:
The “Parting of the Ways” is typically depicted as an inexorable development from Jesus’ revolutionary teachings … the inevitable separation of Christianity (in all its varieties) from its theological, social, and cultural ties to Judaism … the narratives told in modern research echo proto-orthodox/orthodox Christian historiography in asserting that “Jewish-Christian” forms of belief and worship should have never survived – let alone thrived – long beyond the apostolic age.” (Reed AY. ‘Jewish Christianity’ after the ‘Parting of the Ways’: Approaches to Historiography and Self-Definition in the Pseudo-Clementine Literature. In The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages , Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 189-231).
Yet, such “modern research” confirms that the original faith was (correctly) perceived as having many elements considered to be too “Jewish” for them. The so-called “inevitable separation” from scriptural practices considered ‘Jewish’ by many Protestants is not what the Bible calls for.
Furthermore more it is not just a “Parting of the Ways” that is a problem for the Greco-Roman-Protestants, it is as departing from what the Book of Acts often refers to as THE WAY (Acts 9:2,19:9,19:23,24:22).
The departure from THE WAY is what Protestantism has accepted and people like Lonnie Hendrix seem to accept.
Notice also:
Contrary to traditional assumptions about the complete independence and isolation of late antique Christianity from post-Christian Judaism hardly ceased in the second century; (Reed, pp. 225-226).
The original faith was not to change, and in reality, the true one never did. Despite the views of many who wrongly think it was ‘too Jewish.’
Here is a link to a ContinuingCOG YouTube video titled: Church of God or Church of Rome: What Do Catholic Scholars Admit About Early Church History?
Anyway, what we teach in the CCOG about early church history is accurate, scholars recognize that there were two groups, with one holding the original apostolic faith, and the other who changed it.
Just because a lot of people want to believe that the changed church is the correct one, certainly does not make it so.
Remember, true Christians are to “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
I pray that all, including Lonnie Hendrix, will strive to do that.
Some items to assist in your studies may include:
What was the Parting from the Way? What was the parting of the ways? Have most who profess Jesus as Lord gone the broad and wrong way? What does the Bible teach about continuing the original faith? Who does history show held to it? Who holds to it now? Here is a link to a related sermon: Parting from THE WAY.
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?
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
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?
What was the Liturgy of the Early Church? Were early church services mainly scriptural, emotional, or sacramental? Who follows the basic original liturgy today? A related video is also available: What were early Christian church services like?
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 link to a sermon: Claims of Apostolic Succession. Here is a related article in the Spanish language La sucesión apostólica. ¿Ocurrió en Roma, Alejandría, Constantinopla, Antioquía, Jerusalén o Asia Menor?g
Laying on of Hands This is an elementary principle of Hebrews 6. Have you properly had hands laid upon you? Here is a link to a related sermon: Laying on of Hands and Succession.
Laying on of Hands Succession and List Does the Church of God have laying on of hands succession? Does the Continuing Church of God have a list of leaders from the time of the apostles? Here is a link to a related sermon: Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession.
Marcus of Jerusalem: Apostolic successor or apostate? Marcus is claimed to have been the 16th bishop of Jerusalem, but did he get his position from faithfulness or political compromise?
Judas Kyriakos vs. Marcus of Jerusalem: Which was an apostolic successor and which was an apostate? Mark of Judah Kyriakos? What did they stand for? Could apostolic succession for Jerusalem transferred to Mesopotamia for a time?
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? Here is a link to a related video: The Original Apostle’s Creed?
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?
The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3. There is also a YouTube video: The Seven Church Eras of Revelation. There is also a version in the Spanish language: Las Siete Iglesias de Apocalipsis 2 & 3.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences. T
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE?
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L Histoire Continue de l Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete.
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?