Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

[Soyeong]

For about seven years after Messiah's ascension, up until at least Peter's vision in Acts 10, all Christians were Torah-observant Jews, so the denomination closest to the early Christians would be Messianic Judaism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For about seven years after Messiah's ascension, up until at least Peter's vision in Acts 10, all Christians were Torah-observant Jews, so the denomination closest to the early Christians would be Messianic Judaism.

They weren't Messianic Jews, Messianic Judaism didn't exist two thousand years ago.

Messianic Judaism is an entirely modern phenomenon borne out of Western evangelical attempts at proselytizing Jewish persons by adopting and appropriating the trappings of Rabbinic Judaism and usually by the appropriation of Ashkenazi culture.

The first Christians were Jewish and Samaritan Christians; not Messianic Jews.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Non-denominational Non-instrumental autonomous churches of Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_(non-institutional)

Hate to break it to you, but no matter how hard the CoC tries to claim to not be a denomination it's still a denomination. A product of the Stone-Campbell sectarian movement.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Non-denominational Non-instrumental autonomous churches of Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_(non-institutional)

No explanation for why you think these churches fit the bill??

 

[Soyeong]

They weren't Messianic Jews, Messianic Judaism didn't exist two thousand years ago.

Messianic Judaism is an entirely modern phenomenon borne out of Western evangelical attempts at proselytizing Jewish persons by adopting and appropriating the trappings of Rabbinic Judaism and usually by the appropriation of Ashkenazi culture.

The first Christians were Jewish and Samaritan Christians; not Messianic Jews.

-CryptoLutheran

For the first seven or so years, all Christians were Torah-observant Jews who believed in their Messiah, so the first Christians were all Messianic Jews and the modern movement today seeks to revive that. Yes, there is a focus on proselytizing Jews, but that's not the reason for its existence.

 

[Albion]

For the first seven or so years, all Christians were Torah-observant Jews who believed in their Messiah, so the first Christians were all Messianic Jews and the modern movement today seeks to revive that. Yes, there is a focus on proselytizing Jews, but that's not the reason for its existence.

Very well, but I hope you don't think that the ethnicity of the membership overrides a consideration of all the other features of the early church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For the first seven or so years, all Christians were Torah-observant Jews who believed in their Messiah, so the first Christians were all Messianic Jews and the modern movement today seeks to revive that. Yes, there is a focus on proselytizing Jews, but that's not the reason for its existence.

The term "Messianic Jew" refers to a member of a modern movement: Messianic Judaism. The word "Messianic" is a modern construction, an adjective form of the English word Messiah from the Hebrew Meshiach; it is therefore little more than a pseudo-Hebraization of the word Christian. If you are saying Peter, James, and John were "Messianic Jews" because they were "Jews who believed Jesus is the Messiah" then it's just semantics; they were Christian Jews, that is "Jews who believed Jesus is the Christ."

But it is entirely disingenuous to try and claim the earliest Christians were "Messianic Jews", i.e., they followed "Messianic Judaism" because as noted, "Messianic Judaism" did not exist until modern times. Messianic Judaism is an entirely modern expression of Christianity. While there are many different kinds of Messianic Judaism, by far the most common (a la Jews for Jesus) is American Evangelicalism that has appropriated Rabbinic Jewish religious forms and Ashkenazi culture.

"In the 1970s a number of American Jewish converts to Christianity, known as Hebrew Christians, were committed to a church-based conception of Hebrew Christianity. Yet, at the same time, there emerged a growing segment of the Hebrew Christian community that sought a more Jewish lifestyle. Eventually, a division emerged between those who wished to identify as Jews and those who sought to pursue Hebrew Christian goals.... In time, the name of the movement was changed to Messianic Judaism." - Dan Cohn-Sherbok, "Modern Jewish Movements", Judaism Today, p. 100

"Jewish believers are now divided into two broad groups: Hebrew Christians, who identify themselves as religiously Christian but ethnically Jewish, and Messianic Jews, who affirm themselves to be solely Jewish, albeit representing a special type of Judaism. Hebrew Christians are quite happy to be integrated into local Christian churches, but Messianic Jews seek an 'indigenous' expression of theology, worship and lifestyle within the whole church. The latter group emerged in the 1960s when some Christian Jews adopted the name Messianic Jews in order to affirm their belief that Jews who accept Yeshua/Jesus are in fact returning to what they describe as "true Judaism". -http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/judaism/messiah.html

"Messianic Judaism is a Protestant movement that emerged in the last half of the 20th century among believers who were ethnically Jewish but had adopted an Evangelical Christian faith... By the 1960s, a new effort to create a culturally Jewish Protestant Christianity emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews." - J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of Protestantism, p. 373

-CryptoLutheran

 

[outsidethecamp]

No explanation for why you think these churches fit the bill??

I would have to disagree with the "non-instrumental" part and I will tell you why.

When James stood up to speak in favor of the Gentiles not having to obey the Mosaic law, he referred to something Amos said in Amos 9:11-12.

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The crux of the whole dispute at the Jerusalem council what that the Gentiles were to come into “The Tabernacle of DAVID”, NOT “The Tabernacle of Moses”. Keep reading to see some characteristics of the Tabernacle of David, including instruments.

If the Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses and be Circumcised, then they would be coming in under the Law or antitypically be coming into “The Tabernacle of Moses”, with its rites and ceremonies, it’s Sabbaths, Aaronic Priesthood, etc.

But the Gentiles were coming into the NEW Covenant, by faith in the Son of David, Jesus Christ and into the Spiritual House, and Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. That is, antitypically, they were coming into “The Tabernacle of David”.

1 Chronicles, chapters 15, 16 and 17 is a great study on this wonderful subject but I will condense and make a few points.

David, in the will of God, established a complete new order of worship in the Tabernacle which he set up in Mt. Zion.
At the time, there were two tabernacles in existence. The Tabernacle of Moses was still in existence in Mt. Gibeon and the Tabernacle of David was at Mt. Zion (1 Chron 16:37-43, II Chron 1:1-13).

There were two companies of Priests functioning in these two different Tabernacles (that existed at the same time).

The Ark of the Covenant, once it was taken out of the Tabernacle of Moses (which at the time had been at Shiloh), never ever returned to the Tabernacle of Moses, but was taken and set in the Tabernacle of David! “The Glory” departed from Moses’ Tabernacle!

In the Tabernacle of David, there was a new order of worship in singing and singers, praise and worship, instruments of music and continual joy and thanksgiving unto the Lord.

1Ch 16:42 And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters.

David actually transferred, “The Holiest of All” into his Tabernacle, while the Tabernacle of Moses at Gibeon had an empty Most Holy Place, having the Holy Place and Outer Court functions only.

Once David offered the dedicatory sacrifices at the Tabernacle of David, there was only “Sacrifices of Praise and Joy”, offered in his Tabernacle after that.

ALL THIS IS PROPHETICAL of what was to take place under Christ in the New Covenant.

At Calvary, the dedicatory sacrifice was offered once and for all. The Veil of the Temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, signifying the transference of the “Presence of God” to a NEW Temple, a NEW Habitation, even THE CHURCH.

In this “Tabernacle of David,” which is the New Testament Church, there would only be offered, “Sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving” unto the Lord and there is no mention of banning instruments of music that were present in the Tabernacle of David, a type and foreshadow of the Church.

In this “Tabernacle”, Jew and Gentile would come, through faith in the grace of Jesus Christ.

The tabernacle of David was a type and foreshadow of the church and was in ruins.
"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" (Acts 15:16)

It is as if the Lord were saying, "the Tabernacle of David" is destroyed. I will rebuild it. Only this time when I restore it, I will build the reality of the tabernacle of David -- the Church."

Since the first century, God has been building and man has been building, too. Unfortunately, the work of man is always detrimental to the work of God even when it is done in His name. But, God has had a remnant in every generation.

 

[CelticRebel]

I want to revisit this thread and re-post something I posted earlier. This is a fascinating topic worthy of serious discussion. I hope I'll get some responses:

To the OP: I don't know. But I would look for one that contains these doctrines and practices, as being what the NT and earliest churches/Christians held:

1. Congregational autonomy
2. Believer's baptism, by immersion, or pouring if immersion can't be had
3. Christus Victor/Ransom/Recapitulation atonement
4. Bodily resurrection
5. Women in leadership positions
6. No Calvinist doctrines
7. Church as a family
8. Spiritual gifts, but no "baptism of the HS" as defined by Pentecostals
9. No total depravity
10. Justification not forensic or defined in legal terms
11. Scripture as primary authority
12. Original sin not defined to include guilt
13. No church-state union
14. Open communion.

Now, the question is, is there a denomination or Body of Christians that holds to these? I'm not sure myself, but I know plenty who do not.

 

[Albion]

I want to revisit this thread and re-post something I posted earlier. This is a fascinating topic worthy of serious discussion. I hope I'll get some responses:

To the OP: I don't know. But I would look for one that contains these doctrines and practices, as being what the NT and earliest churches/Christians held:

1. Congregational autonomy
2. Believer's baptism, by immersion, or pouring if immersion can't be had
3. Christus Victor/Ransom/Recapitulation atonement
4. Bodily resurrection
5. Women in leadership positions
6. No Calvinist doctrines
7. Church as a family
8. Spiritual gifts, but no "baptism of the HS" as defined by Pentecostals
9. No total depravity
10. Justification not forensic or defined in legal terms
11. Scripture as primary authority
12. Original sin not defined to include guilt
13. No church-state union
14. Open communion.

Now, the question is, is there a denomination or Body of Christians that holds to these? I'm not sure myself, but I know plenty who do not.

I applaud you for taking on the actual topic of the thread when it seemed that everyone wanted to be discussing anything BUT that.

I'd suggest first, however, that we'd have to know if this list does, actually, reflect the first century church. Some of the points are clearly in error IMHO. The early church did not, for example, practice open communion or have women in "leadership positions" if by that is meant clerical ones.

 

[CelticRebel]

I applaud you for taking on the actual topic of the thread when it seemed that everyone wanted to be discussing anything BUT that.

I'd suggest first, however, that we'd have to know if this list does, actually, reflect the first century church. Some of the points are clearly in error IMHO. The early church did not, for example, practice open communion or have women in "leadership positions" if by that is meant clerical ones.

What kind of communion would you say they practiced? Also, would you agree that there were at least women deacons?

BTW, what denomination, if any, would you say is closest to my list?

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe some of you will find the above video interesting. It is filmed at the Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem, one of the monasteries in the possession of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. According to tradition as recorded on a 6th century inscription found there during a restoration of the monastery in 1940, it is built on the site of the home of St. Mary, the mother of St. Mark (the apostle to Egypt), which is the site of the last supper. The inscription reads: "This is the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. Proclaimed a church by the holy apostles under the name of the Virgin Mary, mother of God, after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven. Renewed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year A.D. 73." Assuming that this reflects the true history of the site (which, of course, is a big assumption to make, but I would also note that the 6th century itself is far earlier than the founding dates of many of the churches that people here have insisted represent the "closest to the early church"), it is not an exaggeration to assert that this is either the first building to be consecrated as a church in the entire world, or at the very least the earliest that is still in use.

You will also find a few very ancient practices evident in the way that the liturgy is celebrated here: (1) The church uses Syriac, the closest language used in any church to the Aramaic of Jesus (Aramaic and Syriac are not synonyms, but Syriac did evolve from the earlier Aramaic beginning in the first century AD, i.e., more or less in tandem with the church itself), which was at the time of its founding the language of the people (the international language and language of education was Greek, but the common people of the area spoke Aramaic/Syriac, which was the primary language of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. until the Arab-Muslim invasions); (2) Since these particular Christians are ethnic Malayali people from India, they also use their native Malayalam, in common with the early church which worshiped in the language of the people in addition to Greek (to make sure that all segments of society could follow along and participate; this principle is how we ended up with Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic/Ge'ez, Armenian, Latin, and all later translations of liturgy, patristic writings, and scripture in the first place); (3) Use of particular vestments, incense, and iconography; (4) unaccompanied chant.

I'm willing to bet that some people on this board think at least some of these things are later "inventions" associated with Roman Catholicism, and while the RCC has used particular vestments, a kind of iconography, incense, and liturgical languages (more so in the past than now, but that's a different topic), it is worth noting that Rome has never exercised any kind of control over the Syriac Orthodox Church which you see worshiping here. Rome has preferred instead to create new churches within its own communion out of whatever number of people it can find to unite with it, invariably at some later date than the original founding of the churches it is carving up. More to the point, the Oriental Orthodox communion of which the Syriac Orthodox Church is a constituent part (together with the Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches, the Armenian Apostolic Church, etc.), has been out of communion with all of the Western (Greco-Roman; i.e., basically all Western and Eastern European churches, though Armenia -- being in the Caucasus region, technically straddles the line between Europe and Asia, and may be included in both, at least geographically) churches since the fallout of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 led to a division between those churches that supported it (modern Catholics and through them most Western Christians, and modern Eastern Orthodox) and those who did not (the Oriental Orthodox). So any reflexive rejection or labeling "Catholic-like" of what you see the Syriac Orthodox doing must be dealt with in that context. You will not find an older Christianity than this still in existence today*, though of course plenty of people will argue that the later churches corrected some earlier wrongs and hence should be somehow counted as more "apostolic" despite being founded centuries later and having wildly different doctrine than the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholics (none of which agree with each other in the first place, but all of which can at least trace their origins back to a time before any Protestant or newer religious group).

*A possible exception to this could be the Church of the East (a.k.a. Assyrian Church of the East, "Nestorians"), historically concentrated in the area of the Fertile Crescent (though through missionary activities, they eventually reached as far as China and Mongolia by the time the Arab-Muslims came around to ruin everything for everyone), but it all depends on how you want to look at it. People who argue for the ACoE like to point out that they essentially exited stage left at the Council of Ephesus in 449, which is earlier than the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian split, but if that's a good way to measure age, then wouldn't the Marcionites qualify as "earlier"? Marcion was cast out of the church in the 140s or so (d. 160), and those who followed him would've certainly considered themselves Christians, though the Fathers certainly found them (and him) unorthodox. This whole "create a lineage by claiming that anyone ever told to take a hike was actually somehow right but Rome used her super-secret cabal ultra-powers to twist what REAL Christianity is" thing is the hallmark of discredited and frankly nonsensical theories like Landmarkism/"Trail of Blood" narratives...if that's your thing, fine, but it is worth noting that looking through past collections of heretics and retroactively deciding that they belonged to your church is far more anachronistic than practices you're calling "inventions" that at least have verifiable histories found in the written record before 1851 (when Landmarkism was founded), so, y'know...mind the gap(s)...

 

[CelticRebel]

Maybe some of you will find the above video interesting. It is filmed at the Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem, one of the monasteries in the possession of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. According to tradition as recorded on a 6th century inscription found there during a restoration of the monastery in 1940, it is built on the site of the home of St. Mary, the mother of St. Mark (the apostle to Egypt), which is the site of the last supper. The inscription reads: "This is the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. Proclaimed a church by the holy apostles under the name of the Virgin Mary, mother of God, after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven. Renewed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year A.D. 73." Assuming that this reflects the true history of the site (which, of course, is a big assumption to make, but I would also note that the 6th century itself is far earlier than the founding dates of many of the churches that people here have insisted represent the "closest to the early church"), it is not an exaggeration to assert that this is either the first building to be consecrated as a church in the entire world, or at the very least the earliest that is still in use.

You will also find a few very ancient practices evident in the way that the liturgy is celebrated here: (1) The church uses Syriac, the closest language used in any church to the Aramaic of Jesus (Aramaic and Syriac are not synonyms, but Syriac did evolve from the earlier Aramaic beginning in the first century AD, i.e., more or less in tandem with the church itself), which was at the time of its founding the language of the people (the international language and language of education was Greek, but the common people of the area spoke Aramaic/Syriac, which was the primary language of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. until the Arab-Muslim invasions); (2) Since these particular Christians are ethnic Malayali people from India, they also use their native Malayalam, in common with the early church which worshiped in the language of the people in addition to Greek (to make sure that all segments of society could follow along and participate; this principle is how we ended up with Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic/Ge'ez, Armenian, Latin, and all later translations of liturgy, patristic writings, and scripture in the first place); (3) Use of particular vestments, incense, and iconography; (4) unaccompanied chant.

I'm willing to bet that some people on this board think at least some of these things are later "inventions" associated with Roman Catholicism, and while the RCC has used particular vestments, a kind of iconography, incense, and liturgical languages (more so in the past than now, but that's a different topic), it is worth noting that Rome has never exercised any kind of control over the Syriac Orthodox Church which you see worshiping here. Rome has preferred instead to create new churches within its own communion out of whatever number of people it can find to unite with it, invariably at some later date than the original founding of the churches it is carving up. More to the point, the Oriental Orthodox communion of which the Syriac Orthodox Church is a constituent part (together with the Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches, the Armenian Apostolic Church, etc.), has been out of communion with all of the Western (Greco-Roman; i.e., basically all Western and Eastern European churches, though Armenia -- being in the Caucasus region, technically straddles the line between Europe and Asia, and may be included in both, at least geographically) churches since the fallout of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 led to a division between those churches that supported it (modern Catholics and through them most Western Christians, and modern Eastern Orthodox) and those who did not (the Oriental Orthodox). So any reflexive rejection or labeling "Catholic-like" of what you see the Syriac Orthodox doing must be dealt with in that context. You will not find an older Christianity than this still in existence today*, though of course plenty of people will argue that the later churches corrected some earlier wrongs and hence should be somehow counted as more "apostolic" despite being founded centuries later and having wildly different doctrine than the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholics (none of which agree with each other in the first place, but all of which can at least trace their origins back to a time before any Protestant or newer religious group).

*A possible exception to this could be the Church of the East (a.k.a. Assyrian Church of the East, "Nestorians"), historically concentrated in the area of the Fertile Crescent (though through missionary activities, they eventually reached as far as China and Mongolia by the time the Arab-Muslims came around to ruin everything for everyone), but it all depends on how you want to look at it. People who argue for the ACoE like to point out that they essentially exited stage left at the Council of Ephesus in 449, which is earlier than the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian split, but if that's a good way to measure age, then wouldn't the Marcionites qualify as "earlier"? Marcion was cast out of the church in the 140s or so (d. 160), and those who followed him would've certainly considered themselves Christians, though the Fathers certainly found them (and him) unorthodox. This whole "create a lineage by claiming that anyone ever told to take a hike was actually somehow right but Rome used her super-secret cabal ultra-powers to twist what REAL Christianity is" thing is the hallmark of discredited and frankly nonsensical theories like Landmarkism/"Trail of Blood" narratives...if that's your thing, fine, but it is worth noting that looking through past collections of heretics and retroactively deciding that they belonged to your church is far more anachronistic than practices you're calling "inventions" that at least have verifiable histories found in the written record before 1851 (when Landmarkism was founded), so, y'know...mind the gap(s)...

Thank you for posting this. Even when I was a Baptist, I did not believe that Landmarkism had a basis in scripture or the early church, but neither does the system of innovations and doctrinal development known as Roman Catholicism.

 

[outsidethecamp]

I applaud you for taking on the actual topic of the thread when it seemed that everyone wanted to be discussing anything BUT that.

I'd suggest first, however, that we'd have to know if this list does, actually, reflect the first century church. Some of the points are clearly in error IMHO. The early church did not, for example, practice open communion or have women in "leadership positions" if by that is meant clerical ones.

The Early Church did not practice clergy/laity divisions of the brethren. I see no evidence of that in the NT.

Leadership is serving one another and not "lording over" one another as Diotrephes did in 3 John.

What do you mean by open communion?

Why does the OP limit this to denominations, excluding the house churches?

 

[Albion]

What kind of communion would you say they practiced?

The early church jealously guarded the communion service from non-members and "Christians" belonging to weird sects. A church officer, in addition to the deacon, the readers, etc. was actually the guard. As a matter of fact, there still is a place in the Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy in which the wording survives in which the guests are called to depart because the preparing of the bread and wine is about to start.

Also, would you agree that there were at least women deacons?

No. The early church had deaconesses, not women deacons. The term means a "servant" and both roles could be thought of in that way, but they are very different from each other. The deacon is a clergyman, empowered to read the Gospel during worship, administer the communion elements, and other clerical functions, as well as look after the sick and shut-ins, etc. Deaconesses are lay women who were needed mainly in order to prepare woman candidates for communion because there was a modesty concern. They also taught/teach, primarily other women, and children, but do not have any liturgical functions.

BTW, what denomination, if any, would you say is closest to my list?

I find that a hard one to answer. The question is a reasonable one and fun to ponder, but I'm not sure it's very easy to answer. If we worked on it, point by point, I suspect that we'd find that X denomination is closest in certain ways but not others, while Y denomination is closest in the ones where X fell down but then itself deviated on other ones, and so on.

Logically speaking, there would have to be some denomination that would be "the closest" even if not a perfect copy of the early church, but how would we decide which characteristics are the most important to have and which ones are of lesser importance? And then there's the more fundamental problem of having the list be complete enough for the comparisons to be meaningful.

 

[Albion]

The Early Church did not practice clergy/laity divisions of the brethren. I see no evidence of that in the NT.

Sure it did. See the many references to deacons, presbyters, and bishops that are to be found in the NT.

What do you mean by open communion?

Usually, the term refers to admitting visiting Christians of other denominations to a church's Holy Communion.

Why does the OP limit this to denominations, excluding the house churches?

I suppose that's because no one can say what "house churches" believe, where as it's possible to be specific about that with Lutherans, Catholics, etc.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Sure it did. See the many references to deacons, presbyters, and bishops that are to be found in the NT.

In Php 1:1 the saints were given equal billing with the overseers and deacons. In Col 1:2 the salutation went to “the holy and faithful brothers in Christ.” All of this implies that the elders were themselves also sheep. The elders were a subset of the church as a whole. There was no clergy/laity distinction.

The New Testament knows only of “saints, bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1). “Bishops,” “pastors” and “elders” all refer to the same body of men (Ac 20:17, 28). The oversight of the church is conceived of as a body of elders (1Ti5:17; Jam 5:14). However, the traditional practice of “calling a pastor” separates this “office” from eldership at virtually every point. Under the New Testament pattern, laos (people) and kleron (clergy, inheritance) refer to all of God’s people; hence, elders and deacons are part of the “laity/clergy,” not separate from or above it. “Most denominational churches have departed from this pattern by distinguishing between the pastor and the elders. Common practice makes the pastor a full-time employee of the church, while the elders are laymen who function much like a board of directors”

In the traditional Protestant pattern, the pastor has a “call” that the other elders do not possess, the pastor is trained differently than the elders, the pastor is ordained in a different way than elders, the pastor comes from outside the body whereas the elders come from within the body, the pastor can be led to another church whereas the elders are resident, the pastor can have “Rev” next to his name but not so elders, the pastor is paid to carry out various duties (but not the elders), texts that apply to a body of elders are applied to “the minister”only, the pastor can occupy the pulpit while the elders rarely (if ever) can, and the pastor determines the direction of the worship service. Interestingly, the traditional Protestant way of doing things actually parallels a non-gospel religious model (with priests and witch doctors) more than it does the simple NT pattern.

Usually, the term refers to admitting visiting Christians of other denominations to a church's Holy Communion.

Since communion has to do with being in communion with Christ (Christ-centered) and not the Church itself, (man-centered), then I would think yes. And, what other "denominations" were there in the 1st century? There was the church in Antioch, church in Jerusalem, church in Thyatira, etc, etc.

 

[Albion]

In Php 1:1 the saints were given equal billing with the overseers and deacons.

Equal regard, you mean. There's no denying that the New Testament refers to deacons, presbyters, and bishops, along with their qualifications. They of course ought not be seen as masters of the congregation rather than as servants of the Church, but although that point is often made when this subject surfaces, it's a totally different issue.

 

[outsidethecamp]

That is true. They were brothers and sisters and did not lord over one another. They were not conscious of any"class" distinctions.

 

[CelticRebel]

The early church jealously guarded the communion service from non-members and "Christians" belonging to weird sects. A church officer, in addition to the deacon, the readers, etc. was actually the guard. As a matter of fact, there still is a place in the Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy in which the wording survives in which the guests are called to depart because the preparing of the bread and wine is about to start.


I was talking about the church in NT times. I don't see in the NT where communion was restricted like that.


No. The early church had deaconesses, not women deacons. The term means a "servant" and both roles could be thought of in that way, but they are very different from each other. The deacon is a clergyman, empowered to read the Gospel during worship, administer the communion elements, and other clerical functions, as well as look after the sick and shut-ins, etc. Deaconesses are lay women who were needed mainly in order to prepare woman candidates for communion because there was a modesty concern. They also taught/teach, primarily other women, and children, but do not have any liturgical functions.


Again, I believe the NT says deacon.


I find that a hard one to answer. The question is a reasonable one and fun to ponder, but I'm not sure it's very easy to answer. If we worked on it, point by point, I suspect that we'd find that X denomination is closest in certain ways but not others, while Y denomination is closest in the ones where X fell down but then itself deviated on other ones, and so on.

Logically speaking, there would have to be some denomination that would be "the closest" even if not a perfect copy of the early church, but how would we decide which characteristics are the most important to have and which ones are of lesser importance? And then there's the more fundamental problem of having the list be complete enough for the comparisons to be meaningful.

On this, I agree. (See my other answers in red inside your post.)