The Real Story of the First One Hundred Years of the Church
Lonnie Hendrix
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. Andrew Dugger and Clarence Dodd published their work almost one hundred years ago, and it has largely remained the way that these Sabbatarians recount the history of their organizations since it was published. Unlike other Sabbath-keeping Christians (e.g. Seventh-Day Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists), 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.
In Dugger’s and Dodd’s words:
A history of the true Church of God could not be written without taking into consideration the lives and work of the outstanding leaders of the Gospel Age, that is, the apostles Paul, Peter and John; for by, or under their direction, most of the New Testament Scriptures were written, and the fortunes of the church advanced during the first century, and fashioned for future centuries.
While there is nothing wrong with this statement, Dugger and Dodd used it to wipe out a great deal of real Church history. After going through a brief summary of the work of those three men, they wrote:
It has already been shown that the New Testament name for the true church organized by Jesus Christ was the ‘Church of God,’ and as we leave the New Testament writings and launch out into secular history, which we must do, as the New Testament narrative only carries us to about 96 A.D., we will find the same name brought to view down through the Gospel Age. These people, however, have always been called, by their enemies, by other names. The name ‘Nazarenes,’ applied to them by the world, during the first period following the days of the apostles, will be considered first.
Did you catch that? They want to start their history in 96 A.D. – assuming that the writings of those three men support their position, and that nothing else happened between 33 A.D. and that year to contradict their narrative!
Similarly, in his booklet Where is the True Church? (1984), Herbert Armstrong wrote:
So it was, that before A.D. 50 (the Church had been founded in A.D. 31) a fierce controversy arose as to whether the gospel to be proclaimed was the gospel OF Christ, or a gospel ABOUT Christ. Soon the curtain was wrung down on historic records of the Church. It evidenced the fact that a vigorous cooperative and systematic effort was made to destroy historic records of church happenings of the next hundred years. It was the ‘LOST CENTURY’ in church history. When the curtain of history is raised about A.D. 150, it reveals a church calling itself ‘Christian,’ but one totally different from the Church Jesus founded through his apostles in A.D. 31.
Now, once again, the reader will notice that Armstrong ignores a century of Church history and doesn’t support any of his statements with any sources or evidence!
Even so, Mr. Armstrong’s successors among the Armstrong Churches of God have adopted a similar narrative about the origins of their organizations. In his Where Is the True Church? and Its Incredible History! (June 2026), David Pack wrote:
John’s death, in about AD 100, ended the apostolic era and what constituted most of what is considered the Ephesian Era. We have covered some of the details of where the apostles served and aspects of their work. Polycarp introduces the Smyrna Era, but we need to backtrack and summarize certain events of the Ephesian Era, and consider their implications.
Like his mentor before him, Pack believes that the seven churches of the book of Revelation represent seven church eras. In fairness to Dave, he does go back and mention the great fire in Rome (64 CE), and Nero’s persecution of Roman Christians. Likewise, he does also mention the Roman war against the Jews, but he minimizes its impact on the Church. He went on to write:
The majority of the Church, who were so willing to give up the truth they once embraced, proceeded to shun and condemn those who held fast to what they had all formerly believed. Those ‘Nazarenes’ who chose to remain loyal to the teaching of the apostles were accused of being divisive—deemed guilty of creating ‘schisms.’ We will see that this pattern reappears much later, near the book’s conclusion.
Once again, for Pack, these 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. In his History of Early Christianity, Thiel wrote:
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 14-20) 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"; essentially what they refer to as the early "apostolic see of Ephesus.")
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. 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--for some further details, please see Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?” Later, in the same article, he wrote: “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). Amazingly, a leading Protestant scholar (H. Brown) has admitted: It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 5). In other words, much of what now passes for ‘orthodox Christianity’ did not exist in the first two centuries after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. This is basically because while there was only one original church, another major group emerged in the second century who changed certain original Christian practices and became what most now seem to feel represent ‘orthodoxy’ (for details, please see Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?)”
OK, I gave Bob a little more space just because he claims to be an expert!
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. By the way, a good rule of thumb: history written with an agenda or to prove a thesis never turns out to be historically accurate. The folks who write this kind of “history” are looking for evidence which supports their beliefs, and they ignore any and all evidence which contradicts their narrative!
For those of you who may be interested in the real story of what happened during the first one hundred years of the Church, I’d like to invite you to read my twelve-part series on my own blog. My narrative is evidence-based. It presents an extensive exploration of Scripture and looks at the other sources available to us from that period (e.g. the epistle of Barnabas, epistle of Clement, epistles of Ignatius, epistle of Polycarp, The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, Josephus, etc.) This evidence-based perspective concludes: 1) that First Century Christians were familiar with most of the writings which became our canon of the New Testament, 2) that the vast majority of Gentile Christians NEVER kept the Sabbath, Holy Days, or clean and unclean meats, 3) that Jewish Christianity was largely destroyed by the events of 70 A.D., 4) that most Christians, Jewish and Gentile, gathered on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) to fellowship and worship, 5) that pagan influences on the early Church were minimal at best. Don’t believe that my summary is accurate? I invite you to take a look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 1)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 2)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 3)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 4)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 5)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 6)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 7)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 8)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 9)
The First One Hundred Years of the Church (Part 10)
56 comments:
You all sure this isn't the "reel" story i.e. hearsay?
C'mon, doesn't the NT state early Christians at the Feast of Tabernacles?
chag sameach, shalom
You obviously haven't read the series. It's usually a good idea to do that before you decide to comment.
Thank you for this Lonnie. The Armstrongites will conveniently leave out facts that contradict their own narrative and theology. Early Christian history is fascinating, as Paul in his writings addresses. Not sure what anon @ 8:44:37 means by chag sameach when there is no festival approaching or near at this time. Yes the early church had a majority of Jewish believers but that changed within a short period of time. And this early ‘Jewish’ church did observe the holy days. But they are not binding as Paul so aptly writes on the gentile
believers coming to faith in Jesus Christ. We are saved by grace and that through faith. Cheers.
Perhaps you might show where in the New Testament early Christians are at the Feast, attending it as a common practice
I had already been reading your series, Lonnie, digesting it as time has been available. You have reached many of the same conclusions as I had in my own private research and studies over the past few decades. It is much to digest, but, you have systematized it and made it readily assimilable for anyone with any sort of interest in the topic at all. For whatever reasons, Armstrongism denies that there was any sort of officially sanctioned dichotomy in first century Christianity.. Its adherents do not believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ were intended to be world class, functional not only in a Jewish cultural setting, but in all cultural settings common to humanity. The Judaizers (circumcision party) of the first century would be right at home in most of the local ACOG splinter group sabbath services of today, Paul's warnings notwithstanding.
If one examines Armstrong research methodology, one is immediately confronted by a terminal flaw. Based on the writings of Alexander Hislop, the Ambassador College research team began with a set conclusion, and then worked backwards through available history and lifted whatever the researchers thought was "evidence" supporting their initial conclusion that the only true Christianity was rooted in the precepts of the Sinai Covenant, and not the deeper meanings and expanded principles brought to humanity by Jesus Christ. Thus, the writings of Paul, if read objectively, make no sense at all in the world of Armstrongism, and much of Paul's material must be carefully and deliberately explained away by filtering it through the Old Testament, in a ham-fisted attempt to yank us back into the Old Covenant.
Armstrongism has sometimes been described as a "seeker" church, one that went primarily after the unchurched, or nominally churched, to build its membership. As such, most members did not have the strong roots many multigeneration Christians have, and therefore were not equipped to refute the package HWA so dogmatically presented. Lifelong Armstrongites narrowcast their studies to only the officially approved materials used by their church as reference materials. One simply did not go for the second opinion or alternative explanations as a member of "God's True Church". One learned to take the words of the "Apostle" as if they came directly from Jesus Christ. The word play guy who has a little fun with the Anonymous moniker (so we always know it's him posting the comment!) has taught us a new word, taqiyya. There was plenty of that about Armstrongism, too. It all boils down to intellectual dishonesty. Herbert W. Armstrong exemplified intellectual dishonesty!
BB
Ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, (I mean, Mr. 11:59)...the answer is, John 7:14.
Thanks, Byker for your comment and support. As usual, you hit the nail on the head about intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, Herbert made fun of intellectual integrity!
A very good history series cheers
In John 7 we see Jesus at the Feast. In historical and New Testament usage, ‘early Christians’ refers to the apostles, the Jerusalem church, and the Gentile converts who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus Himself is not an ‘early Christian’; He is the Messiah living under the Law, so His attendance at Tabernacles cannot be cited as evidence of Christians keeping the Feast. And there seems no indication anywhere in the New Testament that the apostles imposed Tabernacles as a duty on believers.
As Paul writes, “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” “Jesus did many other things as well in accordance with that Law.
Miller Jones:
I believe that in the minds of many Armstrongists that there is an unbroken line of descent from Jesus and his disciples down to the current Armstrongist denominations. This doctrinaire view keeps some of them from even entertaining the idea that the histories generated by Dugger, Dodd, Armstrong and Hoeh might be flawed.
But there is a quite obvious issue that would recommend caution and it is something that is not dependent on what some may regard as the arcane texts of history. The lineal descent idea includes the Church of God Seventh Day (CG7) as an important part of the scenario. This is where HWA got his start. He spent some time in CG7 before inaugurating the Radio Church of God. CG7 is, hence, a common ancestor to the various extant Armstrongist denominations. Here is the rub.
Robert Coulter, past president of the General Conference of the Church of God Seventh Day (CG7), in an interview with Dixon Cartwright, stated that the early CG7 was Arian, that is, they did not believe that Jesus was God. CG7 was Arian when Herbert W. Armstrong joined it. Apparently, the CG7 clung to the Sabbath but did not cling to Jesus. How likely is it that the line of the “one and only true church” started by Jesus would pass uniquely through an organization that did not believe Jesus to be God? That is much more than being lukewarm. It is outright heretical. GC7 seems now to be within the Christian fold. But at one time, most notably the time when HWA was active among them, they were not Christian.
What I am saying is that this inconvenient truth should at least give pause to all the “true believers.” There is an unbroken line of Christianity down through history, but it does not pass through CG7 and then the WCG.
Thanks for the history.
Scout
I don't think that Bob bothered to read my series, but he doesn't like it anyway:
https://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/is-what-the-ccog-teaches-about-the-first-hundred-years-of-christianity-accurate/
Let me say at the outset that I'm not trying to diminish anything Lonnie has done with this series. He has done a commendable job and put in a lot of hard work producing it. To respond to every detail presented would require an effect equal to his, which I am not going to do. My objective is to present my own typical skepticism to the nature of "history" in particular and how it fits into the general operation of this world system .
By its very nature, "history" is construed in the eye of the beholder, meaning its a matter of personal opinion. It is subjective and varies from person to person. This means that different people can have vastly different interpretations of the same historical events based on their background, beliefs, and agenda. HWA had his version, both the Jews and the Catholics have their own encyclopedias, we have the liberal encyclopedia Wikipedia and its counterpart Conservapedia. There are multiple illustrations that can be given.
In an article written by the California Learning Resource Network (CLRN.org), we have this example: The term "History is written by the victors" is a well known aphorism suggesting that those than win conflicts, revolutions, or major events have the power to control and shape the narrative of the past (present and future) after manipulating or erasing the perceptions of the defeated. This adage reflects how power shapes memory. Victorious parties (those in power, whether militarily, political, or religious) often:
--control documentation and media to promote their version of events.
--Frame their actions as righteous while portraying the other side as villainous.
--Suppress and downplay dissenting viewpoints.
This can lead to selective bias in historical records, where only the most successful or dominant interpretations survive.
We witness this everyday for this is how this corrupt world system operates. There's no reason to assume that it doesn't apply to past history as well.
Am I suggesting we abandon all political, scientific, or religious history? No, only that it be evaluated on a case by case basis to "see whether these things are so". That is not easy, but in many areas of life this must be a priority.
The Bible says quite a bit about man's failings and deception. Man is easily manipulated and deceived. Adam and Eve were deceived and kicked out of the Garden. The very people who wanted to make Christ king ended up condemning Him. The WHOLE world will wonder after the Beast!
Be careful what you believe, why you believe it, and who's asking or demanding that you do believe it. It could save a lot of grief. In the end it's like Billy Joel says, It's a matter of trust.
Well, you have done it now! Bob is NOT happy with you. Of course he is the ONLY one that is right. You need to repent at the feet of Bob, the All Knowing One.
BP8, your contributions are always appreciated and thoughtful - even when we disagree. History can be very subjective, and you are absolutely right about the victors getting to tell the story. A good history tries to evaluate ALL of the available evidence, which is what I tried to do in this series. I think that this series will have some surprises for ACOG folks, Catholics, and Protestants. For those who are willing to invest the time and are willing to be persuaded by Scripture and the original sources available to us, I think that it will provide some valuable insights into how Christianity evolved during that first one hundred years. Hint: the great false church conspiracy narrative isn't consistent with that evidence.
In Bob Thiel's response to this article, he quoted from the Church History by Eusebius where he discussed the bishops of Jerusalem. Thiel went on to quote parts of a passage from 18th Century English historian Edward Gibbon which seemed to support his view. The full passage, however, reads as follows:
The history of the church of Jerusalem affords a lively proof of the necessity of those precautions, and of the deep impression which the Jewish religion had made on the minds of its sectaries. 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. 17 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 distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms. But when numerous and opulent societies were established in the great cities of the empire, in Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, the reverence which Jerusalem had inspired to all the Christian colonies insensibly diminished. 18b The Jewish converts, or, as they were afterwards called, the Nazarenes, who had laid the foundations of the church, soon found themselves overwhelmed by the increasing multitudes, that from all the various religions of polytheism enlisted under the banner of Christ: and the Gentiles, who, with the approbation of their peculiar apostle, had rejected the intolerable weight of the Mosaic ceremonies, at length refused to their more scrupulous brethren the same toleration which at first they had humbly solicited for their own practice. The ruin of the temple of the city, and of the public religion of the Jews, was severely felt by the Nazarenes; as in their manners, though not in their faith, they maintained so intimate a connection with their impious countrymen, whose misfortunes were attributed by the Pagans to the contempt, and more justly ascribed by the Christians to the wrath, of the Supreme Deity. The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem 18 to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. 19 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 rigor. The emperor founded, under the name of Ælia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, 20 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, and more firmly cemented their union with the Catholic church. 21
Also, Dr Thiel failed to acknowledge that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE made it IMPOSSIBLE for Jews or Jewish Christians to observe the festivals in accordance with Torah.
I'd also like to add that prophecy clearly tells us that when Christ has returned, we will be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles and it will be about as common as common gets.
Thank you Millar for this. The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE did make it impossible for the Jews and Jewish Christians to observe the festivals as per Torah. But over the coming decades and early centuries following, the Rabbinical authorities designed Judaism anew, without a need for the Temple service, that made Jews dependent on them alone as the ultimate authority on all things theological. Hence followed the Talmud (the oral law) and traditions etc etc etc. Tradition became of itself Law. Jewish history following the Temple destruction and the dispersion of Israel globally among the nations is a fascinating story in its own right. Far removed from what Armstrongism taught.
By using the term Jews I do mean all Israel. Not the BI fantasy of the Armstrong movement. Cheers.
Perceptive comment. Thank you for contributing to this thread. As you know, many of the ACOGs turn the message to the seven churches of Revelation into seven church eras to help explain the transition from COG 7th Day to Worldwide COG. Of course, this provokes yet another manipulation of history to make the narrative conform to the individual messages to those churches. Moreover, by labeling his own church as Philadelphia, the WCOG became the golden child of church history. Likewise, that makes COG7D Sardis - about to die - imperfect. It was all made to serve and justify Armstrong's narrative about everything, and it has served the splinters ever since by labeling each other as Laodiceans.
No, Lonnie, wrong again. You say we look at it from our point of view but you look at from your own point of view. We're all looking at the same historical sources but some of those sources are tainted which is one reason why there is so much confusion. They are tainted because the apostate movement was taking over and trying to influence you in their direction, much like the Roman Catholics who tried to turn the British away from the truth in the 3rd century after it was brought there very early by the disciples like Joseph of Arimathea.
Protestantism was a sort of convenient rupture from perverse Catholicism to stem the tide of apostasy. Otherwise we would have been set further behind in the dark ages. And God would have to destroy the world sooner. Same with the UCG/COGWA rupture. There would have been more wickedness and deceit passing off as righteousness and sins unpunished had it not happened.
There is a ton of good historical material out there from church and general historians (each supposedly trying to build on the sure foundation) but, as is usually the case with untrained folk or people with a biased hidden agenda, we choose to believe what we want to believe.
The literary sources that you make ref to (Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, etc.) are all good sources but if you read them with bias or haste they will not benefit you. Some portions have been edited or are outright spurious, such as where Ignatius is encouraging Sunday-keeping.
So what if temple was destroyed in 70 a.d., didn't they worship in the desert in portable tents for 40 años? Wasn't NT Saul/Paul a tentmaker?
Can't one observe festivals in a Red Roof Inn convention centre...
You don't know that. You don't know that Ignatius has been edited or portions spurious. Your information regarding Joseph of Arimathea comes from apocryphal sources and middle ages legends.
Anonymous 6/7 @ 11:28,
Your comment underscores the problem with the ACOG approach to historical sources. Any source or part of a source that doesn't support your narrative is "tainted." ALL of the writings which I included in my presentation were Ante-Roman Catholic Church and demonstrate that Christians were observing Sunday long before the Emperor Constantine was even born. You claim that "there is a ton of good historical material out there from church and general historians." I would agree, but secondary sources and analysis are ALWAYS inferior to primary sources. Finally, I have a degree in teaching history and have studied research techniques and methods at the college level. So, I'm hardly "untrained;" and my only agenda was to show what happened during those first one hundred years.
Sunday, June 7, 2026 at 4:28,
Deuteronomy 12:1 These are the statutes and ordinances you must be careful to obey as long as you live in the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors,[a] has given you to possess.[b] 2 You must by all means destroy[c] all the places where the nations you are about to dispossess worship their gods—on the high mountains and hills and under every leafy tree.[d] 3 You must tear down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars,[e] burn up their sacred Asherah poles,[f] and cut down the images of their gods; you must eliminate their very memory from that place. 4 You must not worship the Lord your God the way they worship. 5 But you must seek only the place he[g] chooses from all your tribes to establish his name as his place of residence,[h] and you must go there. 6 And there you must take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the personal offerings you have prepared,[i] your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 Both you and your families[j] must feast there before the Lord your God and rejoice in all the output of your labor with which he[k] has blessed you. 8 You must not do as we are doing here today, with everyone[l] doing what seems best to him, 9 for you have not yet come to the final stop[m] and inheritance the Lord your God is giving you. 10 When you do go across the Jordan River[n] and settle in the land he[o] is granting you as an inheritance and you find relief from all the enemies who surround you, you will live in safety.[p] 11 Then you must come to the place the Lord your God chooses for his name to reside, bringing[q] everything I am commanding you—your burnt offerings, sacrifices, tithes, the personal offerings you have prepared,[r] and all your choice votive offerings that you devote to him.[s] 12 You shall rejoice in the presence of the Lord your God, along with your sons, daughters, male and female servants, and the Levites in your villages[t] (since they have no allotment or inheritance with you).[u] 13 Make sure you do not offer burnt offerings in any place you wish, 14 for you may do so[v] only in the place the Lord chooses in one of your tribal areas—there you may do everything I am commanding you.[w]
Deuteronomy 16:16 Three times a year all your males must appear before the Lord your God in the place he chooses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Shelters; and they must not appear before him[ft] empty-handed.
Jesus and the apostles always kept the festivals at Jerusalem. So, NO, a Red Roof Inn in Podunk, Indiana would NOT fulfill the instructions in Torah (a hotel is NOT a temporary shelter either).
Damn it Lonnie, Jesus uses the Torah when He wants, & adds to it when he wants, mate.
Jesus does fellowship with us in a Red Roof Inn, or a Motel 6, or a Trump Tower, Mariott, etc.
LOL ;)
And how did Paul observe the festivals when a prisoner in Rome for 2 years??
4:52, in order to "know that" you need a good knowledge of the truth and of the history of the church, as well as discernment to know who is lying to you, which comes with the holy Spirit. I've been reading up on this for over 45 years. If the devil has deceived the whole world (Rev 12:9) that means that few are the ones who are undeceived. Look at our era. I used to look up to high ranking men in the church who went off the deep end in the 90's.
Ignatius' letters are outstanding but the apostasy was happening at that time, late 90's to early 100's AD (to 117 AD or so), during which the doctrines of the Sabbath and Passover were being overturned, and the church was splitting, anti-Jewish sentiment (after 70 AD) was growing, so it was convenient for them to make Sunday the Sabbath and turn Passover into Easter (later coming up with Xmas) with an emphasis on Christ's resurrection to legitimize it.
As for the info re Joseph of Arimathea, you call it a legend because that is what the contrarians would have you believe. Do you know how many early witnesses wrote about this in detail? Do you know? I am talking about church and SECULAR historians. Now, some historians have built in prejudices against this (because their own roots are in unbelief) or they are plainly ignorant (just like modern historians today). The historians give us many NAMES, PLACES and DATES, as well as cite MONUMENTS. And the prophets said that the gospel would go to the far off isles. (Is 66:19) You can't pick and choose or make up your own facts simply because a postulation and its supporting evidence make you upset.
Apocryphal works are apocryphal for a reason -- because they (the powers and principalities that want to shape your schema and enslave you) want you to be ignorant. If we would have quoted from some of those apocryphal works during the 70's and 90's scandals it might have changed the results.
Lonnie, you still need to analyze the primary sources even if you have a degree as one always brings his bias into it, unless he has rid his mind of it through repentance. A degree in history isn't better than the powers of the holy Spirit. Simple knowledge puffs one up (inflates; 1 Cor 8:1) so that alone won't lead you to truth. Otherwise, all the Jews would be saved today. One isn't born again or comes to truth on his own but by God. (John 1:13)
If a person yields to the leadership and guidance of the Holy Spirit within, they will indeed have special insight/discernment into both physical and spiritual truths. The KEY, however, is yielding - some folks have a very hard time doing that. Likewise, a college degree is only valuable if one actually employs/uses what he/she has learned! Also, a little common sense goes a long way.
Paul waited for God to allow him to observe them again after time served. And he kept the festival privately in his mind no matter what mankind can do to him. He kept his own freedom the way Shadrach, Mesech & Abed-Nego did.
He waited like Job did for God to halt Satan's tempests. He waited like Joseph did to get out of the well & the next grievous chapters of life after that.
He waited like Jesus before it was time to roll the stone back, and for the proper time to ascend too. Paul knew how to wait for departure time out of Rome.
He waited like we all do for this blog to get out of it's system all the stuff it's fussin' about...for now.
The interesting thing about following historical "official narratives" is that (like today) things sometime leak out that expose and explode the narrative. This can happen by accident or on purpose for dubious reasons.
In these past few years, several things have come out about the Covid fiasco that has undermined the narrative, even though big Pharma is doing their best to keep it alive. Another example that explodes a narrative, which relates to this post and the 100 years when the church was transitioning to Sunday and Easter, is Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, who at this time (the hundred years) was STILL keeping Passover and the 7th day Saturday sabbath (see William Cove, The Religion of the Ancient Christians of the First Age, 1840, PG 84-85 / also Wikipedia article on Polycarp).
Irenaeus, who was a young man had heard Poly carp preach and described him as a man who was of much greater weight, a man more steadfast witness of the TRUTH (than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics). Why? Polycarp lived in an age after the death of the apostles, when a variety of interpretations of the sayings of Jesus were being preached. HIS ROLE was to authenticate orthodox teachings through his connection with the apostle John: a high value was attached to this witness of Polycarp could give as to the genuine tradition of old apostolic doctrine (sabbath and holydays). (see Irenaesus / Adversus Haereses 111.3.4).
Eventually this stand for TRUTH got him martyred by those in power, and for good reason. His witness contradicted the ongoing transition. So instead of seeing Scout's unbroken line of glorious Christianity down through history, the cracks in the official narrative reveal an unbroken line of persecution of the truth, continuous division, schisms, councils, inquisitions, great controversies, reformations, all of which has led us to this modern age of 45,000 Christian denominations. I see that as the REAL HISTORY of the political and physical church. Concerning the "elect"? The Lord knows those that are His! Those are the ones the gates of hell will not prevail.
History is important. Miller Jones has done a valuable work. He has drawn a line in the sand. And we must through debate and our own research determine where we stand in relation to that line. This is a step in the right direction. We all know George Santayana’s maxim, “"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If you think about that deeply, it is a frightening declaration. Because it is true. And because it is concerned with the perpetuation of an earthly hell.
My Great Grandmother and her people were ahistorical. They explained their place in the Cosmos through oral myth. They did not read or write. They did not know that their ancestors walked out of Siberia into Beringia an then into North America maybe as long as 21,000 years ago. They might have been a part of a great society called Cahokia but nobody knows because Cahokia (a modern moniker) lies beyond living human memory. History is valuable because it connects us and gives us relevance. But does it always give us the truth?
People have recognized the value of history and seek to appropriate it for their own self-interest. I am reminded of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984. The Ministry actually promoted the opposite of the truth. It promoted falsehood. The staff of the Ministry of Truth was engaged in re-writing history to support current political agendas. Re-writing history for them was a perpetual endeavor. In their view, history was malleable and served the purposes of leaders and politicians. In my view, this kind of a literate society is just as ahistorical as the society of my Great Grandmother – it is a society driven by myth.
I appreciate Miller Jones giving us sources and deductions. It can only help.
Scout
Scout
History, science, health, and the environment are all important. The question is, how do you really know who you are getting your information from? Could it possibly be the "Ministry of truth"?
Believe it or not, this world system is not the chocolate factory most people think it is. The key? " The love of money" and power. Both can buy anybody and anything. There are multiple examples that prove this.
Good observations, BP8. Exploding the narrative of the covid fiasco? Yes, it's coming out now, AFTER THE FACT. Honestly, Covid was a test for the church and we flunked when we let the "government edicts" (See Heb 11:23-27 re Moses not being afraid of the king's wrath or his decrees) disrupt us, and it led to a chunk (COGA) breaking off from LCG. From Weston fearing the authorities to Franks saying, "Oh, to wear a mask is to love your neighbour"! Well, what about opening our mouths (and throwing away the mask) to praise God on the Sabbath??? Our leaders in the COG's are so trained to obey every word of secular governments that they don't know when it is right not to obey. The insanity of it all! As you intimated above, it comes down to money, the fear of losing it, in case you disobey. (And it is a reason for not uniting as well) There were some Christians who assembled during that time who weren't afraid of the decrees and wraths of governments. (Heb 11:23,27) Trouble is, many believed the narrative that it was deadly and contagious and required such extreme measures, all of which made it possible for the devil to disrupt church worship and fellowship.
Right about Polycarp, who apparently was born around 70 AD, making him just a young man in his 20's when he listened to and was ordained by John. Right, he got the torch and passed it on to Polycrates. Ignatius and Clement also were pillars in the 2nd century. Before that, Hermas. These men were the ones battling to maintain church doctrine, Sabbath observance, Passover, etc. The counterfeit church that spread from Rome started to flex its muscles during Polycarp and Polycrates' days. They opposed Polycarp's doctrine and Victor broke with Polycarp. Paul had predicted that wolves would enter the church.
Worship of God does NOT require you to open your mouth and spread a deadly virus. My father was vulnerable to the infection because of a pre-existing condition and died because his ACOG brethren were too preoccupied with personal rights and "standing up to government." That was more important than protecting their "beloved" brother in Christ! Selfish, self-righteous, without natural affection, and rebellious are all adjectives which come to mind to describe this mindset.
Where are the quotations from Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement to prove your thesis? The wolves did enter the Church, even in Paul's day. They were the ones insisting that Christians had to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel! The ones insisting that the message wasn't about Christ and salvation through him!
1:15 said “Honestly, Covid was a test for the church and we flunked…”
Very true. By the grace of God after leaving the UCG back in 2012 or thereabouts I fellowshipped with a family group in their home for years before the pandemic hit and when it did we were against the mandatory vaccines and so I with the old married couple (whose home it was) and their daughter refused the vax. A young married couple with UCG who fellowshipped with us regularly took the vax due to work while a middle-aged guy who also was with UCG and at times would fellowship with us too refused the vax, but he was so upset with how UCG handled the pandemic he left them and Idk who he is with now. Another girl who was always fellowshipping with our group every Sabbath was studying and working at a local uni and ended up taking the vax and actually sadly left our group and we never saw her again.
Personally I think the pandemic was an opportunity for the Church to preach against the authoritarianism that was being imposed. But the Church sadly has lost its “power” over the decades due to a variety of factors like atheistic secularism and evolutionism being pushed; the myth of “separating” Christianity and the Bible from politics; and especially after all the sexual scandals that have rocked the Catholic establishment in America in particular.
BP8 and Anonymous 1:15
Polycarp wrote in his Letter to the Philippians: "Knowing that ‘by grace you are saved, not of works,’ but by the will of God through Jesus Christ." While there is some dispute over his soteriology, I believe these words that he wrote. This is the orthodox Christian view of salvation. This is not the Armstrongist view salvation.
So, let me repeat. There is nothing wrong with observing as liturgy the seventh day (or the Holy Days) like Polycarp and his congregation did. There is something very wrong with observing the Sabbath as a requirement for salvation as the Armstrongists teach. The former is a form of worship; the latter is a rank heresy. Polycarp was not an Armstrongist by the confession of his own mouth. Worshipping on the seventh day does not make Polycarp an Armstrongist. Armstrongism, through its assertion of the salvific necessity of the Sabbath, places itself in the same category as The Circumcision Party that wanted to make Torah-keeping a requirement for salvation. This was resoundingly rejected by the Jerusalem Council.
Not all Sabbatarians are alike. Some are Christians who meet on Saturday. Others are heretics who believe that law-keeping, including the Sabbath, is the pathway to salvation. Polycarp studied under John. There is no place in the New Testament that suggests to me that Paul and John had a major dispute over how salvation happens. John wrote, “"These are written that you may believe (pisteo, the verb related to pistos) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) Paul, John and Polycarp all spoke orthodox Christianity. HWA did not. The division between these two opposing sides could not be more blatant.
Scout
Scout
There is no need to muddy the water. I'm sure Polycarp, John, Paul, Bp8, Lonnie and you are all on the same page regarding "salvation". But that's not what this historical study of the 100 years is about.
The posting is presented as the " REAL " story of the first 100 years, a history lesson, where most? Christians had transitioned from certain practices to new means of fellowship and worship. You refer to it as an unbroken line of Christianity down through the ages.
Enter Polycarp!
He is regarded as one of the 3 chief apostolic fathers. He received his doctrine from John, not Victor, not Clement. He was a vital link between the apostolic and patrisistic ages. Like Jesus and John, he observed the Passover and the sabbath, thus cracking the official narrative on Easter and the Lord's day. Yet, this example is NOT even mentioned in this 100 year history! Why not? I know why. I think it's called an inconvenient truth!
From an article produced by The Orthodox Church in America, vol.3, 2nd Century (OCA.com) we read:
The Quartodeciman Controversy was one of the first major tests of ecclesiastical AUTHORITY--showing Rome's attempt to asset CONTROL over distant churches --and it marked a turning point in Christian liturgical practice, cementing Sunday as the universal day of Easter celebration.
Typical of this world system, authority, power, and control is what moves mountains and shapes reality. You can leave that out of your 100 year history but you can't hide it, it's still there.
"You can leave that out of your 100 year history but you can't hide it, it's still there."
The following excerpt is taken from Part 12 of my history:
As has already been noted, Ignatius also wrote a short letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Now, while that epistle demonstrated that these men knew each other and had worked together for the good of the Church, the surviving epistle of Polycarp to the saints at Philippi is even more important. In that letter, Polycarp demonstrated his familiarity with Paul's letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians and Ephesians, the Gospel of Matthew, and the First Epistle of Peter. Moreover, toward the epistle's conclusion, Polycarp provided us with some insight into how these epistles were shared and circulated among the various congregations of that time. He wrote: "Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled. The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us." (See The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians) It is with sadness that we must report that both Ignatius and Polycarp suffered martyrdom for their faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, the days when Christian leaders would die in their beds of old age was still in the distant future as the first one hundred years of the Church came to a close!
The post following my history is nothing but quotations from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. By the way, I recommend that you read xHWA's series on the Quartodeciman Controversy. By the way, I haven't found ANY evidence that Polycarp observed the Sabbath. If you have any such evidence, could you please bring it forward?
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018/04/24/rethinking-polycarp-as-a-friend-of-the-sabbath/
Lonnie, as stated before, Polycarp was a disciple of JOHN. That means he kept the Sabbath as John did. You do what your teacher does (unless you find he is in sin). Otherwise John would not have ordained him. This is late 90's yet you people seem to think that Paul was against all of this before he died in the 60's.
It should be noted in an above post that it was Polycrates who battled with Victor (2nd half of 2nd century) while it was Polycarp who dueled with Anicetus (1st half of 2nd century).
Lonnie, are you blaming the BRETHREN for your father's death? Really? You really think that they are guilty before Christ for his death? Are you a teacher of the faith and willing to condemn a fellow believer for murder before the Lord, who Himself was murdered by sinners for our sakes? That is like saying before God that Christ deserves to die for coming to this earth to take away Satan's authorized rule.
Anonymous 9/26 @ 9:03,
As Peter, James, John, and Paul ALL subscribed to the Jerusalem Council's decision that Gentile Christians would NOT be subject to Torah, I think that it is highly unlikely that Polycarp kept the Sabbath, Holy Days, and clean and unclean meats. Moreover, as Polycarp endorsed the epistles of Ignatius, it seems even less likely that he would observe Jewish customs.
I'm not blaming any member of God's Church. The people who acted like that around my father were NOT exhibiting the fruits of the Holy Spirit (which would make them none of his - Christ's). They were acting like anyone that I would recognize as a brother or sister in Christ. Even so, God knows who is and isn't his, and he is able to forgive anything through Yeshua.
Anonymous 9:03 wrote, “This is late 90's yet you people seem to think that Paul was against all of this before he died in the 60's.”
This is an attempt to “back into” the idea that Paul kept the Sabbath and Holy Days as a requirement for salvation. If Paul were teaching that, why was the Circumcision Party making the rounds trying to convince local churches that Torah keeping was required for salvation? If Paul were teaching that, there would have been no Jerusalem council. The Circumcision Party and Paul would have been on the same page. That is a circumstantial argument. There are other plain statements of theological principle, especially in Hebrews, that indicate to us that the Torah was not a pathway to salvation, in part or in whole.
Paul, John and Polycarp are all on record as teaching salvation by grace through faith. Paul wrote, “"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." This is not what HWA taught. HWA taught by grace (of an attenuated sort hardly worth mentioning) through faith plus lots of qualification towards a possible future salvation. (But notice Paul writes, “you have been saved.”) This is why no Armstrongists believe they have received salvation. And according to their theology it is unlikely that any will. In order to receive salvation, they must turn in their near perfect record of observing the Torah at the Judgment. Yet, I have never known an Armstrongist who keeps the whole Torah.
Scout
Rick Shabi whilst he was UCG President had printed in the UCG Weekly news a letter off Herbert Armstrong disputing your claim that 'Armstrongists believe you have to keep the sabbath for salvation'.
Well said BP8.
I would like to see such a letter. Could you send me a copy, please.
Thanks.
???? 2:16. Sending to whom? And sent in what manner ?
Why don't you contact UCG and ask for the specific President Rick Shabi UCG member letter with the Herbert Armstrong letter. Rick Shabi sent it out not long before his first term as UCG President ended.
Since most here have differing opinions on why and what was practiced at the time of Paul, there's no reason to believe we will agree on the events of the second century, a turbulent time of controversy, anti Jewish and Christian bias, and contention between the Jews, Christians, and the Roman state.
Were there Christians along with Polycarp observing the sabbath at this time? Many of the church Fathers admit as much. The fact that Ignatius urges Christians to stop "practicing Judaism" (Magnessians 8:1), and "living like the Jews" (10:3) and follow the example of the prophets in not Judaizing on the sabbath, implies that many Christians were still following traditional "Jewish customs". Including sabbath observation (but no Scout, not as a pathway to salvation)!
In a earlier comment I listed sources concerning Polycarp and the likelihood that he observed the sabbath. Another book I would recommend is FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY by Samuele Bacchiocchi, an Adventist scholar that most of you will reject for that reason alone, even though he covers the many aspects and attitudes that existed at this time that contributed to this contention between the Jews, Christians, and political Rome. He gives many footnotes, quotes, and data that are germane to this study.
Yes a link to the letter would be great.
In his booklet "Which Day is the Christian Sabbath (1972)," Herbert Armstrong wrote:
"I have given you God's Word faithfully. It is not
popular. It is not what the popular majority tell you.
But NOW YOU KNOW! You will be JUDGED by what
you do with this knowledge!
You must make your own choice. Rebellion means
eternal PUNISHMENT of everlasting DEATH. God will save
no person He does not RULE.
You must choose between GOD'S ways, and MAN'S
ways he falsely calls "Christian."
My responsibility ends with TELLING you. I have cried
aloud. I have lifted my voice. I have TOLD YOU YOUR SIN in
this regard. God calls you to repentance. But He will not
force you. You must make your own decision, and what
you sow you shall reap.
You shall be saved by GRACE, but God does lay down
conditions. You can comply, and receive glorious GRACE
or you can rebel, and pay the DEATH PENALTY - for
eternity!"
Sure sounds to me like Herbie was making Sabbath observance a condition of being saved!
Anonymous 10:35 wrote, "Rick Shabi whilst he was UCG President had printed in the UCG Weekly news a letter off Herbert Armstrong disputing your claim that 'Armstrongists believe you have to keep the sabbath for salvation'.
If you have any doubts, you can consult an article that HWA wrote a 1957 PT titled "How to be Saved." On the other hand, if you want a more interesting life, go to your Armstrongist minister and tell him you are not going to regard the seventh day anymore and see how loud a noise your butt makes as it hits the sidewalk.
Scout
I don't live in 1957 Plain Truth articles. It's 2026.
Do you believe HWA was an Apostle who spoke at the inspiration of God? If so, how can you reject anything he said at any time and any place? Maybe you are an Armstrongist in name only.
Scout
Are you for real "Scout", trying to trap? Can you see only through the lense of WCG 1980's viewpoint? Or pretend to.
Who really believed Herbert Armstrong was an Apostle? Many did not and openly said so in the 80"s, including his own son.
It was widely discussed that Stanley Radar was the one who first came up with the idea of Herbert being an apostle. That even Herbert himself at first rejected the idea as prepostorous. But his ego got the better of him.
Good Armstrongists believe that HWA was an Apostle and spoke with infallibility. That is why the Armstrongist theology is pretty much what it was 50 years ago. That is why Armstrongists continue to believe in British-Israelism in spite of the unassailable scientific and historical evidence to the contrary. To them BI was an inspired revelation from God to HWA. It trumps science and history.
I am for real. Maybe you're not.
Scout
Anonymous @ Saturday, June 13, 2026 at 11:08
I have noticed that some of the modern Armstrongists have tried to distance themselves from the person of Herbert W Armstrong. It simply doesn't work. As the old saying goes, you can't have it both ways! Either Mr. Armstrong was an instrument in God's hands, whom he used to restore doctrinal truths OR he was the quack that this blog claims that he was - an immoral opportunist who used religion to build the empire that he had thought he was destined to build in advertising and business. If he was an egotistical pedophile, then God DID NOT use him to introduce doctrinal truth - Bad trees don't bear good fruit and Good trees don't bear bad fruit!
Many Radio Church of God baptised members did not believe Herbert Armstrong was an Apostle. One of being Loma Armstrong and another Garner Ted Armstrong.
Post a Comment