top of page

List of so called "Early Bishops"



Let us see if their claims that the bishops that came after the Apostles that THEY say were bishops can be shown to be Catholic or Orthodox in doctrine and not Evangelical. Of course the beliefs of Orthodoxy and Catholicism are so different one of them must be forging historical evidence from the start of a logical analysis. If they cannot show this we have proven already that as the new testament shows the Apostles to be like Evangelicals (no rites, rituals or bogus traditions etc) the second wave of bishops of the First Century cannot be proven to be anything other than Evangelical either.

What we must remember here is by "bishop" the Orthodox do not mean one little man somewhere in charge of a housegroup, that is like an Evangelical Pastor,  but a person supposedly above that in charge of some huge imaginary jurisdiction, so the entire idea is bogus from the very start. That is what the present Ukrainian Schism in Orthodoxy is partly about, which Mr Big bishop rules over what huge landmass of people, 

The underlying premise of Catholic/Orthodox heresy is the concept "To be sure you have the right Faith believing the bible - you must check out all the writings of men like Ignatius first (who they say contradict the bible by being like them anyway)." When if we did (stress if)  find Catholic/Orthodox teachings in his writings real Christians would just see him as an example of emerging heresy. In other words we either believe the bible or not. The Catholics and the Orthodox do not. Then you are also supposed to check up on the theology of the said writers, many history writers were influenced by Origen for instance, why trust writings of men who believed teachings by heretics themselves? This task is so arduous (and irrelevant to bible believers) the illiterate "laity" and those kept away from the bible just gave up and handed themselves over to the traditions of men.

Orthodox Deception - the foundation.

In order to make several long lists of bogus bishops doing hand-me-down power, the scene is first set by Orthodox pseudo historians by saying there were 70 other Apostles beside the 12 (they were helpers not apostles), fabricating histories of their lives and martyrdoms, like Saint Peter being crucified upside down on Vatican Hill, Saint John being boiled in oil but they could not kill him, oh and skinning Bartholomew alive - to name but a few. Proof of this fake history is then given because they supposedly have bits and pieces of their bodies (sounds like "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" to me).  This gets you used to old wives tales and fables passed off as traditions, so the scene is now set for them to invent fake histories of long lists of pseudo bishops after the death of the apostles. And the herds of Orthodox yes-men lap it all up as if it was true, like a starving cat eating garbage.

First Generation bishops.

If we take the apostles as the first bishops, and we see them as first generation, it is important to look at what doctrines they had.

1) "Evangelical in doctrine"

2) "Catholic" in doctrine"

3) "Eastern Orthodox in doctrine"

4) other...

The second Generation of Bishops:

In order to analyse from the historical evidence the claim by Catholics and the Orthodox that the next generation of bishops after the apostles had the same teachings as them we must see 

1) The "bishops" can be proven to have existed in the first place

2) They all had Orthodox or Catholic doctrine

3) They all became bishops by a necessity to have their authority passed on by a direct line of descent by the laying on of hands, and underwent chrismation etc. And it can be proven they had this laying on of hands.

The wave of so called bishops I wish to look into the existence or beliefs of, are those alive by the time of the death of St John the Divine, the Apostle, usually reported to have died in 100 AD, which also makes it easier to examine the subject as 1st century.


Even the Orthodox say the so called jurisdictions of these bishops over the centuries changed massively, so the list from that perspective is very deceptive by Orthodoxy from the start. The bishops who were supposed to be alive when apostle was still alive are: 

Patriarchs of Byzantium.



2. St. Stachys the Apostle (38–54).

3. St. Onesimus (54–68).

4. Polycarpus I (69–89).

5. Plutarch (89–105)

Patriarchs of Alexandria.


2)  Anianus (68–85).

3)  Avilius (85–98).

4)  Kedron (98–109).

Patriarchs of Antioch.



2)  Evodius (c. 53–c. 69).

​​3)  Ignatius (c. 70–c. 107), who was martyred in the reign of Trajan. His seven epistles are unique sources for the early Church.

Patriarchs of Jerusalem.



2) Simeon I (62-107)

Patriarchs of Rome.



1) St, Paul (founding Patriarch).

(Apostle to the Gentiles)



1)  St. Peter (32-67).. (founding Father and first Pope)

(Apostle to the circumcision???)

Saint Peters jurisdiction according to Catholics (not at all that proposed by Orthodoxy,)

2)  St. Linus (67-76).

3)  St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88).

​​4)  St. Clement I (88-97).

5)  St. Evaristus (97-105).

note..... one thing that the Evangelicals and the Orthodox agree on is the falsity of the Catholic claim the first bishop of Rome, or first Patriarch, was St Peter, as he is clearly "the Apostle to the Jews" as Paul was "the Apostle to the Gentiles"

note: concerning the manipulation of history, please notice the massively larger number of characters described as saints in the pseudo ancestry of the Pope.


1. St. Stachys the Apostle (38–54)........ not proven to exist as a bishop


2)  Evodius (c. 53–c. 69).................................... little is known about him

3. St. Onesimus (54–68).......................not proven to exist as a bishop

4) Simeon I (62-107).............................. so little is known about him they cannot decide if he is supposed to be Simon the brother of Jesus (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) Simon the Zealot, or another Simon. 


"According to Eusebius, Simeon was executed about the year 107 or 117 under the reign of emperor Trajan by the proconsul Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes in Jerusalem or the vicinity. However, this must be a mistake by Eusebius because the administrator (Legate) of the Roman province of Judea at the time of the crucifixion was Quintus Pompeius Falco (between 105-107 AD) and Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes was there much earlier, from 99-102 AD." unquote

5) St. Linus (67-76)......................... Catholics insist this is the Linus of 2 Tim 4:21, and he was "the second Pope." How ridiculous, the second so called Head of the Church gets this tiny mention. That he was supposedly a bishop is based on very spurious text, and God forgot to mention it in the new testament. Preposterous. It is another example of lifting a name from the new testament and turning him into a pseudo apostolic bishop. 

6) Anianus (68–85)...................... Catholics say he was the second "Pope" of Alexandria (seems like that is two Popes - Linus and Anianus),  the coptics say the first. According to the theory of Apostolic Succession that would mean perhaps Jesus made him a bishop (???). What proves the old wives tales (passed off as tradition) to be totally unreliable is Catholics say Mark was directly involved in the conversion story of Anianus, but if it was supported by any kind of evidence why do Coptics say Anianus was the first bishop? One answer might be Mark was an apostle/bishop who visited Alexandria to ordain him (do the power transfer). No evidence of sources.

7). Polycarpus I (69–89)........................was a bishop of Byzantium. They say he succeeded Bishop Onesimus in 71 AD, and served in that office for eighteen years until his death in 89 AD. His last eight years of office (from 81 AD) were during Emperor Domitian's persecution of the Christians. They have tried to prove his existence with what are almost 1,000% certain to be false relics, which are deposited in the Cathedral of Argyropolis.

8)  Ignatius (c. 70–c. 107), ...................  A tradition arose that he was one of the children whom Jesus Christ took in his arms and blessed, although if he was born around 35 AD, as supposed, then Christ had ascended approximately five years prior. It just shows you how much tradition can be trusted. However it is more likely yet another proven attempt to "grab a character out of the bible" and make them a bishop than it is he actually was an apostolic bishop.


Almost nothing historically about this man, simply traditional fill-ins, Why trust the small mentions by Eusebius when Eusebius is proved to have made historical blunders, and did not establish Ignatius to be Catholic nor Orthodox in doctrine? Remember also that many so called proof texts are simply later writers referring to Eusebius, not adding proof themselves. thus are spurious or irrelevant to establishing facts.

Ignatius was a writer so this is the first of these characters who can be checked out as an example of being pure in doctrine or an early heretic. Pretty strange if he does not claim to be an apostolic bishop himself.  - remember..... the new testament is full of heretic cults emerging. like the Judaizing heresy (refuted in Galatians) the Antinomian heresy (refuted in the Epistle of Jude and mentioned in Rom 3:8) the Nicolaitan heresy etc.

He is traditionally said to have been a martyr that was eaten by animals.

There is a divine promise in Matthew 4:4 to perfectly preserve every word of God, word for word. What exactly are the "Catholic/Orthodox" quotes that he makes that makes him one of "their" bishops (if he ever even was one)?

notes: personal: check

do they even know the earliest date of the manuscript of EACH of Ignatius' letters, which are all COPIES made by heretics, all foaming at the mouth to tweak his letters in translation. Are they even in the same language?

give me all the quotes that so called "prove" Ignatius was Orthodox/Catholic in beliefs, not Evangelical. Let's hear his Orthodox/Catholic doctrines. Because he opposed Judaizer heretics and the docetists.... so what? So do I. So do all Protestants.


9)  St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88).................Saint Anacletus, also called Cletus, or Anencletus, ( 1st century AD, ; feast day April 26), supposedly second pope (76–88 or 79–91) after St. Peter. According to St. Epiphanius and the priest Tyrannius Rufinus (influenced by Origen - and in conflict with Jerome) , he directed the Roman Church with St. Linus, successor to St. Peter, during Peter’s lifetime. He died, supposedly a martyr, during the reign of Domitian.

quote "traditionally credited with setting up about twenty-five parishes in Rome.". To add to the confusion many claim his 3 names are from 3 completely different individuals. Worse those forging Catholic history cannot even agree to the order in which of the "Popes" appear in history. gives quote

"The Catholic Church teaches that Pope St. Cletus (also known as Anacletus or Anencletus) was the third bishop of Rome and assumes that he died a martyr in Rome. In practice, we really know nothing about Pope Cletus and can not even be sure whether a person of that name ever lived.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says that most scholars are of the opinion that, in spite of Church tradition, the early church of Rome was led by a group of presbyters, and that bishops were not appointed to the church in Rome until later in the second century. In other words, there can have been no Pope Cletus (Anacletus or Anencletus), although it is possible there was a presbyter of than name." unquote.


They insist he was "a glorious martyr", but offer no proof of how or when he died. He appears in the Roman Catholic "Roman Martyrology" April 26th & July 13th without stating the manner of his so called martyrdom.



10)  Avilius (85–98)...........................




​​11)  St. Clement I (88-97).


12) Plutarch (89–105)


​13)  St. Evaristus (97-105).


​14)  Kedron (98–109).

(this page is under construction)

bottom of page