How did the earliest Christians differ from us.

Tyler52 said:

How did they differ from Protestants
[How did they differ from Catholics
How did they differ from Eastern Orthodox
How did they differ from Oriental Orthodox
Thank you and God bless

Click to expand...

Unlike Protestants, they did not believe in any of the Five Solas, and there was no Iconoclasm among them, and the Eucharist was held in high reverence which among Protestants we really only see among Anglo Catholics and Lutherans.

Unlike Roman Catholics, the early Church had no concept of Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility (which was dogmatized at the First Vatican Council n the 1860s and caused a schism with the Old Catholics), Purgatory or Indulgences. That said, Rome has had celibate priests for its recorded history, and indeed made an effort through its legates to have celibacy for priests included in the canons of the Council of Nicaea, but the bishops voted this down.

The only major difference compared to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox is that some local churches were permitted to celebrate the Pascha on the 14th of Nissan; Quartodecimianism was not prohibited until the Council of Nicaea. Additionally, the Syriac speaking Christians converted by St. Thomas the Apostle got vernacular Bibles in the fourth century, the Peshitta, and the Copts got vernacular Bibles in both the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects starting in the fifth century.

Also, the liturgical music has become better, for example, a few years prior to his martyrdom, I would say around 100 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch had a dream that inspired the development of antiphonal music. This led to the development of a diverse array of different types of hymns in the various Orthodox churches, such as the Kontakion, Canon and Troparion in the Byzantine Rite, and the Qanone and the metrical homily in the Syriac Rite, and the eight tone system of chant (Octoechos) in both the Byzantine and Syriac Rite, which was also implemented in Gregorian Chant and other Orthodox rites, and in the Coptic church, a system of chant called Tasbeha, which has named rather than numbered tones.

Basically the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and some Eastern Catholic churches, are as close as you can get to the Early Church. In the case of the Roman church, considering that prior to the late sixth century under Pope St. Gregory, they used monotone hymns exclusively (except in Milan, which began developing its own liturgy under St. Ambrose, and other places under the Gallican liturgical rite, which was later suppressed by Charlemagne in favor of the Roman rite), their liturgy improved very dramatically. However, Pope Gregory was one of the last Bishops of Rome who upheld the extreme conservatism which characterized the church in Rome previously (but not other Western churches which were part of the Roman Patriarchate). Rome never had an Arian or Nestorian or Iconoclast Pope (although it did have a Monothelite Pope, Honorius I, who is the only Pope who supported a doctrine that would later be anathematized by one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils).

Aaron112 said:

They were more honest and closer to True Scripture.

Click to expand...

Ananias and Sapphiras are on record as the only Christians named in the Bible who were killed for their dishonesty, so I should say Scripture does not support that asssertion. We also have Nicolas the Deacon, who founded the only heretical sect so noxious that Christ our True God declared hatred for its doctrines explicitly. And there is also the problem, the considerable problem, that the very early Christians did not have access to the New Testament scriptures, for the Pauline Epistles were still being written and the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse (Revelation) would not be complete until late in the first century, and Latin speaking Christians would not have a complete translation of them until the second century, and Aramaic speaking Christians would not have a translation of all 27 books of the New Testament until that of Mor Thomas of Harqel in the sixth century, although they had the four Gospels in the third century and 22 of the 27 books in the fourth century.


So insofar as very early Christians were close to true Scripture, it was due to their access to the Holy Apostles and their appointed successors such as Saints Timothy, Linus, Clement and Ignatius the Martyr, and the successors of these bishops such as Saints Polycarp and Irenaeus of Lyons. And from this the faith of the early church has been preserved continually and without interruption until the present.

The Liturgist said:

Ananias and Sapphiras are on record as the only Christians named in the Bible who were killed for their dishonesty, so I should say Scripture does not support that asssertion.

Click to expand...

Or did Ananias and Sapphira show by their deeds that their sup[posed Christian faith was a sham?

David Lamb said:

Or did Ananias and Sapphira show by their deeds that their sup[posed Christian faith was a sham?

Click to expand...

They were baptized members of the Church, and they were struck down, as others have been since (Arius, for example, who died in the lavatory of the Hagia Sophia when he was about to receive communion thanks to the machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia, is widely considered to be among those who perished as per 1 Corinthians 11:27-34), but their case is unique, since it is recorded in Scripture.

And we can’t judge the sincerity of their faith, merely that they were dishonest in which fault they are not alone among the faithful, which is why we must all pray for forgiveness for our various misdeeds.

Tyler52 said:

How did they differ from Protestants
How did they differ from Catholics
How did they differ from Eastern Orthodox
How did they differ from Oriental Orthodox
Thank you and God bless

Click to expand...

Oy vey! Okay so, shortly after James (Jesus physical brother) was maryred I believe in 62 AD. Shortly after that the church fled to Asia Minor or what is today called Turkey John was released from his imprisonment on Patmos and he appointed Polycarp of Smyrna as his successor as the Bishop of Smyrna. In 105 AD Polycarp would travel to Rome over the Quartodeciman controversy he spoke with arose because Christians in Jerusalem and Asia Minor observed Passover on the 14th of the first month (Nisan), regardless of the day of the week on which it occurred, while the churches in and around Rome celebrated Easter on the Sunday following first Full Moon following the vernal equinox, calling it "the day of the resurrection of our Savior". The difference became an ecclesiastical controversy when the practice was condemned by synods of bishops. You will find that the Church in Asia minor was VERY much in alignment with observing Gods feast days (appointed times) along with the Sabbath. The western part of the body over time quickly became corrupt this was the FIRST of many moves that usurped the word of God over Man-made traditions. Ironically, it was the VERY THING that Yeshua railed against the Pharisees over. Since there was a bishop and believers in Rome and Rome ruled the world it grew in wealth and power. In 1054 the last straw fell on the camel's back separating Eastern Orthodox and Catholics and it was over the Filioque clause which diminishes the holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son as a part of the Nicene creed. Oriential Orthodox is part of the broader Orthodox church.

Protestantism came about in 1517 through Martin Luther and his thesis. His thesis was long but one of the main issues with was the selling of indulgences.

Tyler52 said:

How did they differ from Protestants
How did they differ from Catholics
How did they differ from Eastern Orthodox
How did they differ from Oriental Orthodox
Thank you and God bless

Click to expand...

The earliest Christians did not have the time for more reflection on the meaning of the incarnation. They did not even have much agreement on who Jesus is, divine or human. They had no clear idea nor agreement on the Trinity.

Akita Suggagaki said:

The earliest Christians did not have the time for more reflection on the meaning of the incarnation. They did not even have much agreement on who Jesus is, divine or human. They had no clear idea nor agreement on the Trinity.

Click to expand...

That view, popular among liberal Christians, is refuted by the contents of the New Testament and by the widespread opposition to Arianism among the existing hierarchs of the early Church.

Akita Suggagaki said:

The earliest Christians did not have the time for more reflection on the meaning of the incarnation. They did not even have much agreement on who Jesus is, divine or human. They had no clear idea nor agreement on the Trinity.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense, because what we know of the Incarnation and the Godhead existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit comes from the bible, particularly the New Testament, which was written by some of those "earliest Christians."

Why would a thread about the earliest Christians concern the supposed "Church Fathers" when as admitted by all, the New Testament is the testimony of the earliest Christians? Paul said -

Act 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

This being the case, should we not eye the writings of supposed or suggested Church Fathers after the apostles, with a good deal of scrutiny? Carefully comparing them with the scriptures themsleves for authenticity. No doubt they contain both a record of authenticity, and apostasy.

Amo2 said:

Why would a thread about the earliest Christians concern the supposed "Church Fathers" when as admitted by all, the New Testament is the testimony of the earliest Christians?

Click to expand...

The earliest Church Fathers were around when the events of the New Testament were happening. St. Clement of Rome is mentioned by name in Philippians 4:3.

Amo2 said:

This being the case, should we not eye the writings of supposed or suggested Church Fathers after the apostles, with a good deal of scrutiny? Carefully comparing them with the scriptures themsleves for authenticity. No doubt they contain both a record of authenticity, and apostasy.

Click to expand...

Their writings were scrutinized in their lifetimes and in the centuries afterward, which is part of why writers like Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius are not considered Church Fathers, although their writings still have value for their historical insight.

They differed in one significant way. They didn't have to deal with 2000 years of the teachings of men which have added to, altered and redefined the teachings of Christ.

Godsunworthyservant said:

They differed in one significant way. They didn't have to deal with 2000 years of the teachings of men which have added to, altered and redefined the teachings of Christ.

Click to expand...

They did already have many antichrists in their midst, and wolves , instead of faithful teachers, that did great damage to the assemblies rendering many unfit, untrustable, just as the apostles said , as Jesus warned.

It is evident from the Bible that the 1st century church had power and gifts from the Holy Spirit that we do not have.
My prayer is that God pours out His Spirit upon believers in these end times as is prophesied in His Word.

John G. said:

It is evident from the Bible that the 1st century church had power and gifts from the Holy Spirit that we do not have.
My prayer is that God pours out His Spirit upon believers in these end times as is prophesied in His Word.

Click to expand...

Did Jesus change ? Just because the vast number of people claiming Him do not follow Him does not mean He changed, nor that those who abide in union with Jesus are lacking anything the first century believers enjoyed in His Presence / Union with Him.

Amo2 said:

Why would a thread about the earliest Christians concern the supposed "Church Fathers" when as admitted by all, the New Testament is the testimony of the earliest Christians?

Click to expand...

Because they represent many of the earliest Christians known to us, and also this forum is the Patristics forum, which is, you know, about the Church Fathers, that being the definition of Patristics.

Paul said -

Act 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

This being the case, should we not eye the writings of supposed or suggested Church Fathers after the apostles, with a good deal of scrutiny? Carefully comparing them with the scriptures themsleves for authenticity. No doubt they contain both a record of authenticity, and apostasy.

Click to expand...

And we know who St. Paul was referring to: the Gnostics, following in the footsteps of Simon Magus, who proliferated after his demise and wrote numerous false works of Scripture, and also in the case of Marcion tried to rewrite his own epistles and the Gospel According to Luke in order to delete references to the Old Testament, since Marcion believed that the Old Testament referred to a different deity (as did most Gnostics), a flawed demiurge who Christ had come to liberate us from (the Ophites, a Syrian sect of Gnostics, took this to an extreme by blasphemously identifying Christ the Son of God with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden). The Gnostics wrote numerous counterfeit works of Scripture like the so-called Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, the Tripartite Tractate, the Pistis Sophia, the Acts of Thomas, the blasphemous Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and countless others, several specimens being discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 1940s and others discovered before that time or preserved in quotations. The Ebionites also wrote a false gospel.

Also, certain other heresies appeared in his absence, such as the Ebionites, who deny his epistles and tried to force adherence to Judaism on Christians contra Acts 15, and the Sabellians, Arians, Pneumatomachs, and other non-Trinitarians, and other heretics.

The early Church Fathers prevented the inclusion of the false scriptures of the Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, et al, and defended the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity at the ecumenical synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus in the fourth and early fifth century, in the fourth century enduring persecution, for the sinister Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia got to Constantius, the son and heir of Emperor Constantine, and as a result every emperor from Constantius to Valens, except for Julian “the Apostate” was an Arian heretic, and Julian was a neo-Platonist who ironically released from exile several Christian bishops such as Athanasius, who had been replaced by Arians, and restored them to their sees, but he did this thinking it would weaken rather than strengthen Christianity by restarting the feud (which at the time it looked like the Arians had won, at least in the Eastern empire).

You should probably study the Church Fathers, who they were, and what they wrote, particularly the Greek and Syrian fathers, and the important contribution they made to our Christian faith, for example, by collecting the Epistles of St. Paul which you propose to use against them (contrary to 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15) and developing the Scriptural canon we use, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this being finalized by St. Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria in 363 and subsequently adopted by the other churches by the end of the 5th century (if we look at early bibles from the fourth century such as Codex Sinaitcus and Codex Alexandrinus and the original Peshitta, we find either too many books, like the spurious Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, and the Epistle of Barnabus, or too few, the Peshitta missing 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse (Revelation); these were later added to the West Syriac Peshitto (used by the Syriac Orthodox and the Maronites of Lebanon*. translation by the Syriac Orthodox father Mar Thomas of Harqel, but never added to the East Syriac copies (although the Assyrian Church of the East recognizes the books as canonical).

* The Maronites, who separated from the Syriac Orthodox in a schism by embracing Monothelitism, a heresy condemned by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and pretty much everyone else (which also resulted in the Roman Catholic Church anathematizing the deceased Pope Honorius I, who remains the only Roman Pope to be anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church, which in the High Middle Ages and Renaissance led to supposed grimoires being attributed to him, along with other silly folklore), before later during the Crusades joining with the Roman Catholic Church, which proved to be a mistake as in subsequent centuries their liturgy suffered from severe Latinization, and was gutted after Vatican II, and their people lost knowledge of the Aramaic language, so that in contrast to the Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East, no Maronites can speak vernacular Aramaic and it has been reduced to occasional liturgical use by their clergy, who mainly use Arabic, whereas in contrast there are tens of thousands of Syriac Orthodox and 700,000 members of the Church of the East who can still speak various dialects of Aramaic as their primary language, along with a few thousand members of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in Maaloula, Syria, which was occupied by Al Qaeda in 2015).