Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

[Clearly]

In post #17, Albion described a suggested, objective group of characteristics whereby we could compare the earliest authentic Christianity with any modern christian movement or denomination. Albion said :

“... I'm taking the liberty of numbering your points for the convenience of anyone who replies to one or all of them with their answers.

1. What was the “ecclesiatical organization” of the church in Jesus’ time and what movement most resembles that organization?

2. What was the authentic description of Faith and repentance in the church of Jesus’ time and what movement believes most closely to that early and authentic model?

3. What were the authentic ordinances in the church of Jesus’ time (e.g. baptism and laying on of hands, healing, etc) and which movement teaches and practices them most closely to the early church?

4. What texts were used by the Church of Jesus time and the era closest to Jesus’ time and which movement is most consistent with the earliest Judao-Christian texts? “


Armistead41 then opines in post #19 that “Unitarian Universalist would be closest to the early church beliefs as a whole, based on church fathers, creeds, universities, rituals, etc... “



If we use objective criteria of comparisons as Albion suggests, then how do the “Unitarian Universalists” (or any other group claiming similarity) compare to the earliest authentic Christian church descriptions? For example :

Comparision of Ecclesiatical organization :

If the earliest authentic Judao-Christian movement was lead by a group of 12 apostles receiving revelation from God, then how does this compare to the “Unitarian Universalists”?

Is their ecclesiastical organization similar or dissimilar? Is it similarly lead by 12 apostles with a triumvirate of Three at the head or is their ecclestical organization dissimilar?


Comparision of the Role of Faith and repentance :

If Faith in Jesus as God’s messiah to mankind and repentance for sin was taught in the earliest Judao-Christian movement, how do the “Unitarian Universalists” compare in their treatment of these fundamental religious principles?

Do the “Unitarian Universalists” similarly teach repentance for sin as a component for justification as did the early Judao-Christian movement or is the role of faith and repentance in this modern movement dissimilar to the earliest Judao-Christian descriptions?


Comparision of Authentic ordinances and fruits of the spirit :

If baptism was an ordinance central to the earliest Judao-Christian descriptions, how does this compare to the “Unitarian Universalists”?

Do they baptize as did the earliest Christian movement did or not?

If they do, then are the “Unitarian Universalists” similar, or dissimilar in their method of baptism.

Do they have the gift of tongues, or practice healing, or have revelation among their membership similar to the earliest Judao-Christian movement or are they dissimilar in these specific characteristics?



A Comparision of How well are they able to use the earliest Judao-Christian texts :

Since virtually all modern Christian denominations use the O.T. and N.T., they cannot BE separated based on whether they simply use these two texts.

However, how comfortable is their theology with the earliest Judao-Christian psalms, their mishnas, their diaries, their epigrapha, the odes and the earliest Christian decensus literature, the earliest Judao-christian ascension literature, etc.

The early Judao-Christians described their early teachings in both sacred and secular literature in fairly clear terms.

How well does the “Universal Unitarian” movements characteristic match such textual descriptions. Can the Universalists USE the earliest texts in their “Sunday school lessons” similarto the early Judao-Christian movement or do the earliest Judao-Christian texts feel “foreign” to the Universalists?



My point is that there are very concrete and objective characteristics we can use in comparing ANY modern movement with the earliest Known Judao-christian movement and that these objective comparisons are MUCH more valid and tangible than trying to use our own subjective and highly interpretive opinions as a basis for a claim that a specific modern Christian movement is most similar or that it is NOT really as similar as a claimant wishes to believe.

Clearly
twfutzzo

 

[Armistead14]

Even if we could decide what denomination is closest to early Christians, that wouldn't make that denomination more right. We have to remember early Christians were in many ways as divided as we are today. The goal of our Greek Fathers such as Irenaeus was that Christians accept one doctrinal authority, but that took time, councils, etc.

The early church had limited info, the later church had more info, but also more error and opinion. It was common for early church fathers to be deemed heretics by later church fathers, who were often deemed heretics by even later church fathers.

The Unitarian church today reminds me much of the early church, where many influences, pagan themes, philosophy had roles determining sects. I believe most Unitarians believe each can find a path to God. The early church was more of a lost wandering child, but also more loving. As the church deemed doctrinal standards, became more political, it certainly became less loving.

Now, all that being said, I hardly agree with the Unitarians today, except I lean towards universalism. But I certainly think they can be compared to the early church that was lost and still finding it's way. Certainly a great many in the early church espoused universalism.

 

[Albion]

Even if we could decide what denomination is closest to early Christians, that wouldn't make that denomination more right. We have to remember early Christians were in many ways as divided as we are today.

Quite true, but that was the question of the thread.

The Unitarian church today reminds me much of the early church, where many influences, pagan themes, philosophy had roles determining sects. I believe most Unitarians believe each can find a path to God. The early church was more of a lost wandering child, but also more loving. As the church deemed doctrinal standards, became more political, it certainly became less loving.

Now, all that being said, I hardly agree with the Unitarians today, except I lean towards universalism. But I certainly think they can be compared to the early church that was lost and still finding it's way. Certainly a great many in the early church espoused universalism.

 

[Clearly]

Armistead14 :

I agree strongly with your inference that the later theologians such as Irenaeus were using their strong influence to convince large groups of their personal theology and used the early proto-roman catholic church as their voice.

I also agree that the “church fathers” were all seen as heretics in the eyes of other theologians who had differing beliefs. Such years of theological theories and infighting for influence was, to a certain extent, a “theological cat fight”. The “winners” of which got to have their theology deemed “orthodox” and adopted by the dominant organization of their various periods.

It was a time of “theologian derived theology”, quite different from the “prophet transmitted theology” of early Judao-christianity.


You mentioned that “ The Unitarian church today reminds me much of the early church, where many influences, pagan themes, philosophy had roles determining sects. I believe most Unitarians believe each can find a path to God…. I certainly think they can be compared to the early church that was lost and still finding it's way. Certainly a great many in the early church espoused universalism. “ Armistead in post #22

I honestly know very little about the Unitarian church. Can we compare it to “the early church that was lost..” you have described? For example :

Comparing Ecclesiatical organization :
The earliest authentic Judao-Christian movement was lead by a group of 12 apostles receiving revelation from God. Do the “Unitarian Universalists” claim to be similarly lead by 12 apostles receiving revelation or by some other means?

Comparing the Role of Faith and repentance :
Faith in Jesus as God’s messiah to mankind and repentance for sin was taught in the earliest Judao-Christian movement. What role does “repentance for sin” play in the “Unitarian Universalists” church?

Is repentance for sin necessary as a component for justification underlying salvation similar to the early Judao-Christian movement? What is the role of repentance in the Unitarian Universalist church?


Comparision of Authentic ordinances and fruits of the spirit :
Do the “Unitarian Universalists” baptize those wanting membership into their movement similar to early Judao-christianity? If so, can you tell us how this baptism is done?

Do Unitarian Universalists have the gift of the Holy Ghost and the accompanying signs of it and the fruits of the spirit indwelling them such as speaking in foreign tongues similar to the early Christian movement?

Are they able to heal one another of diseases similar to the early Christian movement?

Do they have revelations from God given to their members similar to the earliest Judao-Christian movement?


How well are the Unitarian Universalists able to use the earliest Judao-Christian texts :

Do you see evidence that the Unitarian Universalist scholars and historians are aware of and able to use the ancient Judao-christian texts in any coordinated relationship to the Unitarian Universalist movement? Are their scholars able to use early Judao-christian psalms, mishnas, diaries, epigrapha, ascension and decensus literature, odes, etc. in explaining and supporting their current doctrines?





Armistead14, I very much agree with some of your earlier statements and admit that I know fairly little about many of the “modern” Christian movements since that is not where my interest lies. I appreciate the education your responses might provide for the rest of us regarding why you think the Unitarian Universalist movement is most similar to the early Judao-christian movement.

Thank you and I wish you the best experience in your own spiritual journey


clearly
twacfuio

 

[woodpecker]

I don't believe such exists, it's impossible to recreate the unique conditions that existed in the earliest period of Christianity. The apostolic period was unique, as was the patristic period that followed.

The Church adapted and developed accordingly to meet the needs of an ever-shifting historical climate without ever forsaking its principal calling and the substance of its confession. That is, the Church has always been the Church, and Christianity has always been Christianity.

The numerous schisms that have taken place over the centuries (since the 5th century with the Nestorian and Miaphysite schisms) have been unfortunate obviously, but I don't believe it right to say that any one modern church tradition is everything as it was in the first century. That's simply unrealistic gas.

I'm Lutheran, and I'm Lutheran because I believe Lutheranism is exceptionally biblical; but it would be insane to claim that the Apostles and Fathers were Lutherans. I believe Lutheranism captures the heart and spirit of the Apostolic and Patristic Faith, but obviously others disagree--hence our many and varied divisions.

There is no such thing as a perfect church, and modern romantic notions of Primitivism are neither realistic, healthy, nor good--ultimately amounting to anachronistically forcing modern perspectives onto our spiritual fore-fathers and fore-mothers of two thousand years ago.

-CryptoLutheran

agreed.

We in these modern day's look nothing like the early church.

-Women would have their heads covered.

-Women could not speak in church.

-Three would prophecy.

-Three could speak in tongues with interpretation (8 But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.)

-The Lord Super would be an actual meal.

-church worship and prayer would go for more than 45min. and they would not of been concerned about getting out in time for the foot ball game

-Christians willfully practicing sin would be asked to leave worship, and not take place in the Lords supper until they had repented.

-women would be dressed modestly, not as if they are going to a night club
=======

I have looked for this church, I can not find it. No church's today follow the worship structure that apostle Paul established in the Corinthian church.

 

[Albion]

agreed.

We in these modern day's look nothing like the early church.

-Women would have their heads covered.

That's true. Some churches still insist upon it.

-Women could not speak in church.

That's false. Paul griped about them speaking TOO much in church.

-Three would prophecy.

OK

-Three could speak in tongues with interpretation (8 But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.)

True. Tongues died out but they were evident in the beginning.

The Lord Super would be an actual meal.

That's not true. It was separate from the fellowship meal.

-church worship and prayer would go for more than 45min. and they would not of been concerned about getting out in time for the foot ball game

True.

Christians willfully practicing sin would be asked to leave worship, and not take place in the Lords supper until they had repented.

As well as not permitting aspirants from being in church for the second half of the service featuring the Eucharist.

women would be dressed modestly, not as if they are going to a night club

I don't know what churches you've been attending, but this hasn't been an issue in any of the ones I've been to.

I have looked for this church, I can not find it. No church's today follow the worship structure that apostle Paul established in the Corinthian church.

Then the resolution of this thread's question will lie with either the greatest number of similarities OR the most important ones, regardless of how many items that is.

 

[woodpecker]

That's true. Some churches still insist upon it.


That's false. Paul griped about them speaking TOO much in church.


OK


True. Tongues died out but they were evident in the beginning.


That's not true. It was separate from the fellowship meal.


True.


As well as not permitting aspirants from being in church for the second half of the service featuring the Eucharist.


I don't know what churches you've been attending, but this hasn't been an issue in any of the ones I've been to.



Then the resolution of this thread's question will lie with either the greatest number of similarities OR the most important ones, regardless of how many items that is.

nowhere does the Scripture say women "talked to much".

You will not find the complete church in Christ if you do not believe the Holy Spirit is the same today as old, all the gifts of the Spirit are so today, I speak in tongues.

I attend a non-denominational church, many of the women come dressed very seductively. I am assuming they are either wolves in sheep's clothing, or carnal Christians that do not submit to God in the area of dress, or do not know the scripture and are just Sunday Christians.

anyway, we disagree on the power of the Holy Spirit, and I pray you will allow God to show you His full glory.

 

[Albion]

nowhere does the Scripture say women "talked to much".

And I didn't say those words that you put quotation marks around, either. But Paul clearly called for women to keep silent during church services, so that fact proves that they had spoken in church previously.

You will not find the complete church in Christ if you do not believe the Holy Spirit is the same today as old, all the gifts of the Spirit are so today, I speak in tongues.

That's a consideration, all right. The early church did have a need for tongues-speaking and it was a part of the early church's experience before the phenomenon fulfilled its purpose and died out.

I attend a non-denominational church, many of the women come dressed very seductively.

What a strange thing. Maybe it's time to consider another church.

I am assuming they are either wolves in sheep's clothing, or carnal Christians that do not submit to God in the area of dress, or do not know the scripture and are just Sunday Christians.

I don't think they're just Sunday Christians. That wouldn't explain this kind of dress.

anyway, we disagree on the power of the Holy Spirit

Oh no we do not. We disagree on HOW the Holy Spirit works.

I pray you will allow God to show you His full glory.

And I will make it a point to pray for you, too.

 

[woodpecker]

And I didn't say those words that you put quotation marks around, either. But Paul clearly called for women to keep silent during church services, so that fact proves that they had spoken in church previously.


That's a consideration, all right. The early church did have a need for tongues-speaking and it was a part of the early church's experience before the phenomenon fulfilled its purpose and died out.

again, I will pray the Holy Spirit forgive you for claiming power over what the Holy Spirit can, and can not do today. I use to believe like you, now I sing and pray in tongues.
I do not attend a Charismatic church for they are not obedient to the teachings of Paul on the matter of speaking in tongues in worship, many just stand a pray in tongues, and there is no order to it, nor interpretation.



What a strange thing. Maybe it's time to consider another church.

You do not leave a church because some in the congregation are baby Christians, this is a church with many new believers. I stay and support the church for they preach and believe all of scripture, and we except our difference in theology where it is gray, but in areas of salvation and who God is, we must all agree.


I don't think they're just Sunday Christians. That wouldn't explain this kind of dress.
of course it does, I became a Christian at 38, I dressed worldly for awhile, until I got into scripture and the Holy Spirit started convicting me...obviously these women do not know the teaching of women to dress modest.



Oh no we do not. We disagree on HOW the Holy Spirit works.

you have put yourself in the place of authority, when you claim the Holy Spirit can and can not do something.



And I will make it a point to pray for you, too.

not sure your heart is sincere,...like I said, I once limited the Holy Spirit on what He can do, then He showed me His full glory.

please do not mock me, I really do pray from my heart, you will experience all the Holy Spirit has to give.

bless you
---------
just noticed it did not display my replies to you in a different font? But I did reply.

 

[Albion]

not sure your heart is sincere,...like I said, I once limited the Holy Spirit on what He can do, then He showed me His full glory.

You don't think I'd pray for you?

Try not to be so insecure.

 

[woodpecker]

You don't think I'd pray for you?

Try not to be so insecure.

no especially after you so lovingly called me insecure.

good luck with finding a church, peace.

 

[Albion]

good luck with finding a church, peace.

Doesn't the one I belong to count?

 

[woodpecker]

Doesn't the one I belong to count?

you sure are an antagonist, not very Christian like

 

[Clearly]

ViaCrucis in #9 “I don't believe such exists, it's impossible to recreate the unique conditions that existed in the earliest period of Christianity. The apostolic period was unique, as was the patristic period that followed. The Church adapted and developed accordingly to meet the needs of an ever-shifting historical climate without ever forsaking its principal calling and the substance of its confession. That is, the Church has always been the Church, and Christianity has always been Christianity. The numerous schisms that have taken place over the centuries […] have been unfortunate obviously, but I don't believe it right to say that any one modern church tradition is everything as it was in the first century […] modern romantic notions of Primitivism are neither realistic, healthy, nor good--ultimately amounting to anachronistically forcing modern perspectives onto our spiritual fore-fathers and fore-mothers of two thousand years ago.”


I have been thinking about ViaCrucis’ post (#9) after Woodpecker re-quoted it in context of Woodpeckers claim that authentic early Christianity today would require women to cover their heads and to remain silent in church services, etc (in post #25).

I believe that a major conceptual difficulty inside ViaCrucis and Woodpeckers objection is that the objection does not differentiate between some of the changing and temporal provential cultural practices and the unchanging eternal truths underlying the early Judao-christian gospel.

For example, early Judao-christian texts describe eternal and unchanging and perfect moral principles underlying and forming authentic ancient Judao-Christianity.

The texts however, ALSO describe , and embed those principles inside a history of mankinds’ quite imperfect attempt to understand, express and then live those principles inside the infinite varieties of differing intelligence, differing understanding, differing cultural conditioning; differing symbol sets of changing language and differing cultures.


The oldest extant epigraphic Christian sermon we have, reminds us that there is something eternal about the “church” since “… the Books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, but was revealed in the last days … No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy will share in the original” (2nd Clement 14:3).

The context of the εκκλεσια having been somehow eternal is the same context underlying many early descriptions of the church. For example, In the 4th-5th Century New testament, C. Sinaiticus, Hermas has a vision of the church as already having been “an old woman” by his age. In his vision the angel asks him, “Who do you think the elderly woman from whom you received the little book was?” I said : “The Sibyl.” “You are wrong,” he said. “She is not.” “Then who is she?” I said. “The Church” he replied. I said to him “Why, then, is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.” (Hermas 8:1)


I think ViaCrucis' observation was quite insightful and correct, in reference to a comparison of CULTURAL expressions of Gospel principles will not give us the most valuable information we’d like to have whether we are looking at the Gospel in Moses age or Jesus day, or in the early Post Apostolic age. However, the answer to the question of modern Christian movements that best understand and live those eternal and unchanging and perfect moral principles underling authentic religion would be a profitable study so as to allow us to take from them what is good and helpful while disregarding any cultural contamination the movement might have in them.

For example,

Eternal Moral law
If God the Fathers initial plan involved preparing spirits to live in an eternal social heaven in eternal joy and eternal unity, he had to prepare these spirits to understand and master the moral laws upon which such an eternal society is established and maintained. To seek a historical knowledge of what these moral laws were and how man was to learn and master living such eternal laws is independent of culture and time periods as it has eternal application.

Context of gospel – god’s plan
If the early Judao-Christian prophets understood God’s plan and taught it to the early saints, then the eternal aspects of that plan also have great value independent of the culture and time period in which those principles are learned.

For example of early Judao-christian Principles of great value to later Christians

THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD THE FATHER TO SPIRITS is important as it helps us understand God’s motives in greater depth than to simply say “God loves us”. Though this point is correct, it does not allow us to interact with God and his plan in greater depth that an understanding of Gods original purpose would allow us. The early Judao-christian descriptions form a logical basis upon which other principles may be understood.

CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLIGENT SPIRITS – This type of knowledge helps us understand the characteristics within the spirits of mankind that affects the type of experiences God engineers into mortality as well as touches on the necessity for God to intervene in the development of the spirits of mankind. The early Judao-christian concept of intelligent, “self willed” matter making up the spirits of mankind allows for a coherent and logical view of Gods initial plan and why such a plan had to be developed and how it affected the nature of Gods plan.

THE PLAN OF GOD TO TEACH INTELLIGENT SPIRITS – To understand what Gods plan was in the very beginning of his plan, helps us to interact with that plan with greater intelligence and efficiency in accomplishing Gods purposes for mankind.

PHYSICAL CREATION – The understanding of physical creation in the earliest Judao-christian models brings the model of creation back into coordination with scientific knowledge rather than opposing it, and it places man and creation into the original context.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPIRITS OF MANKIND TO PRINCIPLES OF FREE WILL; MORAL LAW; AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR LIVING IN ETERNAL HEAVEN – The early Judao-Christian recognition of intelligence and “self will” in the spirits of mankind in the earliest Judao-Christian context is helpful in understanding and developing models as to why Gods plan had to involve a great "sieving" or “sorting” of mankind based on the level of moral law mankind freely chose to live. (that is, God could not allow murderers, thieves, bullies, liers, etc. into the society of heaven, else it could not maintain eternal unity and joy that was to characterize heaven). Understanding why certain types of knowledge and experience were necessary to prepare individuals to live in heaven allows us to develop models of fairness in what seems to be, on the surface, a sometimes arbitrary and unfair and even cruel existence for some individuals during their mortal lives.

Though the later theologians theorized concerning many of these issues, I do not think their theories, (many of which have become the modern “orthodoxies” taught by several Christian movements) are as coherent as; as logical as and are most often, inferior to the earliest Judao-christian descriptions of their beliefs on these subjects .


Clearly
vidrtzbg

 

[Clearly]

I did not start the Opening Post, but I have seen the various arguments from the last time this question was asked and it was fairly unfruitful and was closed as it became quite argumentative.


Perhaps, rather than a comparison of texts (which often ends up as dueling scriptures), you might consider a comparison of contexts and see where that takes you :


We consistently see individuals comparing discrete textual interpretations of discrete lumps of verses from one of many modern versions of a single ancient text instead of comparing a larger data set of the actual history that produced the text they argue about. That is, we see constant comparisons of TEXT without CON-TEXT (that is, the historic conditions underlying and responsible for the text itself). We argue “sound bites” of discrete superficial things rather than discussing the profound principles underlying religion.

IF there is a christian movement that has either maintained, or returned to early Judao-Christian context it will tend to view all minor principles in view of this larger ancient context.

For example : We may well ask which Christian movements nowadays still retain any foundational knowledge of the profoundly important pre-creation themes concerning conditions existing before the creation of the physical universe; what God’s purposes were in creation; Why God developed THIS specific plan for mortal man; etc.



These are the more foundational principles that deserve more of our attention if we are to make better sense of the smaller and discrete gospel “bits” we tend to argue about.


There are probably only a very few modern Christian movements that still retain knowledge of such themes and thus, to find out who THOSE Christian movements are, may be of greater benefit than to ask which Christian movements “love one another”, or which ones “still teach baptism”; or which ones “still teach authentic repentance”, etc.


Without the larger, important foundational principles as a context, one may not know WHY we are to learn to “love one another” or WHY we are to learn to submit to a “baptismal” covenant, or WHY were to learn to “repent”. Without the greater comprehension purposes built into eternal moral laws God gives mankind and what obedience to such laws actually are to accomplish; then trying to “do“ baptism will remain a higher form of “monkey see, monkey do”.


If one is to compare “which denomination is closest to early Christianity”, then one could easily start by looking at the most basic (and most important) type of knowledge they have.



For example :


Most modern Christian movements no longer even have any detailed doctrine regarding the war in heaven and Lucifers fall from heaven as the ancients had. Without such foundational knowledge evil cannot BE placed into the logical and intuitive ancient perspective and context.


Which Christian movements even have knowledge of and accurate doctrines concerning pre-creation conditions and doings?

Clearly
fuviviit

 

[RisingSpirit]

Doesn't the one I belong to count?

Non denomination are arminian and that doesn't count since they save themselves based on their own free will choice as if God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Knee V]

Non denomination are arminian and that doesn't count since they save themselves based on their own free will choice as if God has nothing to do with it.

He is Anglican/Episcopalian.

 

[Albion]

He is Anglican/Episcopalian.

Good morning, knee-v.

Rising's comment was a strange one on several levels, wasn't it?

 

[Knee V]

Good morning.

Yes, and if it weren't off-topic I'd delve into it.

 

[woodpecker]

Non denomination are arminian and that doesn't count since they save themselves based on their own free will choice as if God has nothing to do with it.

obviously you do not know what your talking about.