Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

[lismore]

You could probably substitute that for any other denomination depending on the speakers view- interesting question but prone as ever to just turning into another denominational/doctrinal argument that is not very edifying

It's simple, compare the speaker's view with scripture!

 

[Bethesda]

It's simple, compare the speaker's view with scripture!

But then it depends on the interpretation of that scripture - the many threads on here demonstrate that whether it women speaking in church, rich and poor, paying taxes, owning guns, transubstantiation vs memorial, pre-destination, tongues, judging behaviour, whether to cane your child etc etc there are many views - if there were not then this would be a much smaller forum in terms of the number of posts!

 

[lismore]

But then it depends on the interpretation of that scripture - the many threads on here demonstrate that whether it women speaking in church, rich and poor, paying taxes, owning guns, transubstantiation vs memorial, pre-destination, tongues, judging behaviour, whether to cane your child etc etc there are many views - if there were not then this would be a much smaller forum in terms of the number of posts!

I think many posters are defending their denominations ideas rather than discussing scripture per se.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I would have trouble answering that question. The earliest 1st century Christian group/s are unfortuantly those that we have the least information on it appears. By the 2nd and 3rd century different traditions of Christianity seemed to have already multiplied exponentially. So, some modern churches may be similar to specific early Christian communities and still be very different from others found in the same time period.

 

[John 1720]

Hello all.

I'm very new to Christian history or anything outside the Anglican Church really. I was just wondering what modern day denomination, in your opinion, is closest to the early Christians in terms of what they believed and how they worshipped. I know a lot of denominations, including my own, claim to be Apostolic but some of these are very different indeed.

This is like "beauty", which is really going to be in the eye of the beholder. I too began my search here and it is a worthy venture to want to live out the faith as delivered from the Apostles. When looking for a Church look for one grounded in faith and one that is moving in the Will of God. Faith without works is dead but works without faith is even moreso. It's a liberal corpse, laden with rigomortis, which only glorifies man and not God. Beware of such churches! You will find even great variances among churches in the same denomination, even as the seven churches of Revelation were of the same faith but some were barely alive while others flourished in Christ. It best to heed Jesus when looking for a home where you can grow in Christ, both growing in love the love of God and the love of your fellow man. Most of all stay in the Word and pray, pray, pray. God will reveal His Will for you if you but seek and ask from a pure heart. Ask for the gift of discernment and wisdom, remembering the Lord's Words,

Found in Matthew's Gospel
Matthew 7:16-21
"You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn-bushes or figs from thistles? :17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. :18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. :19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. :20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them. :21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

So bear fruit in keeping with your repentance (Mt 3:8 Lk 3:8) knowing that it is God Himself that has planted forth in you a seed which shall spring up into eternal life, and that you may even in this life live a life of love and purity in God who will not forsake you, As He has said, "Abide in Me and I shall abide in you." Do not let anyone turn your heart from the first love, which you have discovered in Christ, but instead continue to let the Holy Spirit soften your heart and do His work in you. Then you will grow. It is good to grow alongside wonderful men, women and children who are in Christ but know even if this is taken away from you at some point you are still going to be salt and light - even if that is from a prison cell. God will certain grow you to be an overcomer of all things if you but allow Him to do His Work in your heart. It is His desire to refine you and mold you as gold tried in the furnace. Take heart that God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory.
Some Bible Verses to ponder:

John 16:33 "These things I (Jesus) have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
1Jo 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
1Jo 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.

1 Peter 1:7
that the genuineness of your faith, [being] much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

May the Light of Christ shine in you, John 1720

 

[barryatlake]

First of all ,the Catholic Church is not a denomination, because it has never spit from itself. Protestant churches along with their cults have all split away from a former church.
All the early Christian Churches, that is real Christian Churches meaning those based on Christ's apostles and their successors [ Matt.28:18-20 ] [ Luke 10:16 ] were all under the same Catholic/Apostolic umbrella,all taught same doctrine.
Jesus only left us His Apostolic Church which of course was and still is based on His Apostles and along with the only One True Interpretation of Holy Scripture infused with the One True Holy Spirit with the same Teaching of Scripture because it contains only the One True way of interpreting Holy Scripture, not as many different interpretations as found since the Reformation and adding up to well over 30,000 +Protestant interpretations and unfortunately still growing while moving further and further away from Christ's Apostolic/ Catholic Church.The Church is without a doubt based on Christ's apostles/ successors [ Eph. 2: 19-20 ] only one Church can trace it's religious roots back to Jesus and His apostles and that Church still exists today as Jesus promised even with all of the 'troubles' that Satan has attempted against it in his attempt to defeat it, never will he win because the Church of the Apostles belongs to Jesus our Lord and God and infused with the Holy Spirit giving the Church the "Fullness of the Faith" as the Holy Bible tells us [ Matt.18:15-18 ] [ Rom.16:17-18 and 1 Cor.1:10 ].

 

[Albion]

First of all ,the Catholic Church is not a denomination, because it has never spit from itself. Protestant churches along with their cults have all split away from a former church.
All the early Christian Churches, that is real Christian Churches meaning those based on Christ's apostles and their successors [ Matt.28:18-20 ] [ Luke 10:16 ] were all under the same Catholic/Apostolic umbrella,all taught same doctrine.
Jesus only left us His Apostolic Church which of course was and still is based on His Apostles and along with the only One True Interpretation of Holy Scripture infused with the One True Holy Spirit with the same Teaching of Scripture because it contains only the One True way of interpreting Holy Scripture, not as many different interpretations as found since the Reformation and adding up to well over 30,000 +Protestant interpretations and unfortunately still growing while moving further and further away from Christ's Apostolic/ Catholic Church.The Church is without a doubt based on Christ's apostles/ successors [ Eph. 2: 19-20 ] only one Church can trace it's religious roots back to Jesus and His apostles and that Church still exists today as Jesus promised even with all of the 'troubles' that Satan has attempted against it in his attempt to defeat it, never will he win because the Church of the Apostles belongs to Jesus our Lord and God and infused with the Holy Spirit giving the Church the "Fullness of the Faith" as the Holy Bible tells us [ Matt.18:15-18 ] [ Rom.16:17-18 and 1 Cor.1:10 ].

The early church certainly knew no Pope, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, co-Mediatrixes, cardinals, monseignors, nuns, monasteries, indulgences, transubstantiation, Treasury of Merit, Purgatory, Limbo, Vatican City, seminaries, novenas, Rosaries, statuary, Assumptions, Stations of the Cross, Seven Sacraments, catechisms, parochial schools, Solemn Benediction, crucifixes, Holy Days of Obligation, and scapulars, but other than that and a few dozen other differences, the church you are so proud of is almost as close to the early church as, say, the Baptists.

 

[barryatlake]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body, the Church.Peter and the authority of the "Keys" { Matt. 16:15-19]
Authority to the Apostles/nucleus of His Church being that it was formed on the Apostles/ successors [ Matt.28:18-20 ] Authority again shown to only His Apostolic/Catholic Church [ Luke 10:16 ] The marvelous growth of the Church, in spite of great obstacles and fierce persecution , is certainly a sign that it is the Church of Jesus , Jesus never promised us a perfect Church, only that it would be made of both good and bad members , and yes a few bad members have hurt the Church but never can anybody including satan completely ever overtake the only Church that Jesus left for aii of us . The Church was given the authority to "bind and loose" , no other Church can claim this Authority from Jesus.

 

[Tornero]

The Ebonites where the first. Generally they where nontrinitarian, that came when Constintine I created that concept after a debate with Arius of Alexander.

Their concept of heaven, hell and salvation was different. Hell was just distance from god, and it was only eternal until you expected god before or after physical death. There is even evidence of some strange reincarnative beliefs.

They are often described as Gnostic Christians , look into that. Even look into the hidden gospel of Thomas. Fond in Egypt 1945.

Catholicism maybe the first Christians, but they where not the first followers of Christ. The whole interpretation of cathlocism was created by Constintine I.

 

[Knee V]

The Ebonites where the first. Generally they where nontrinitarian, that came when Constintine I created that concept after a debate with Arius of Alexander.

Their concept of heaven, hell and salvation was different. Hell was just distance from god, and it was only eternal until you expected god before or after physical death. There is even evidence of some strange reincarnative beliefs.

They are often described as Gnostic Christians , look into that. Even look into the hidden gospel of Thomas. Fond in Egypt 1945.

Catholicism maybe the first Christians, but they where not the first followers of Christ. The whole interpretation of cathlocism was created by Constintine I.

You would do well to read the writings of Christians before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Trinitarianism did not originate in the 4th century by any stretch, nor did Constantine have anything to do with Christian doctrine. The Gnostics were condemned by the Apostles, most notably John, and they were condemned by the Christians of later generations as well. Gnosticism is not genuine Christianity. The Apostles and their successors rejected it whole-sale.

 

[Tornero]

You would do well to read the writings of Christians before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Trinitarianism did not originate in the 4th century by any stretch, nor did Constantine have anything to do with Christian doctrine. The Gnostics were condemned by the Apostles, most notably John, and they were condemned by the Christians of later generations as well. Gnosticism is not genuine Christianity. The Apostles and their successors rejected it whole-sale.

Constintine I had a lot to do with the Christian doctrine. Arius of Alexander began preaching nontriniterianist as he and his followers knew nothing about The Trinity. Arian Christianitity was very widely spread.

At the council of Necea none of the exPagans liked anything that Arius was saying, they where used to worshipping human gods that walk the earth. So the trinity was exempted by Constintine as the idea that Jesus, a man, was a god , appealed to former Pagans. So Arius was excommunicated. Arianism wasn't a denomination of chritianity, it was what the first people belived.

I was speaking g on Gnostic Christians, who where one of the first followers. Search for the gospel of Thomas.

 

[meNetzari]

Netzarim (plural) were and are the first followers of The Nazarene. Netzari is Hebrew for Nazarene.

In the Netzari faith the Beit Din or house of judges was established by James The Just and consists of three or more just men. It is the same now as it was then. When Paul went to Jerusalem to discus what should be expected of gentile converts, the discussion was with the Beit Din. Acts 15

I was reborn 12 years ago and heard a man named Baruch Ben Danial speak, he explained his family has been of the Netzari faith from the time of Messiah. Not having found a church that didn't include dogma and doctrine in their faith I didn't even want to call myself a Christian, even though being born again was as is still my most profound experience. I knew I wanted to be with those who practiced the faith of the First Century Church. The I heard Andrew Gabriel Roth explain that the Netzari have no hierarchy only one High Priest who is Yeshua haMashiach, The Messiah, I knew I was home.

Most Netzarim are of Hebrew ancestry but do not follow Jewish tradition, as Yeshua taught us not too. But do follow Torah as he also taught. the expectations of gentile believers is as it has always been, we hear Moses every Shabbat and follow God's Commandants as they are written on our hearts.

Netzari are not a newer community of believers, the line has remained unbroken in the middle-east since the time of our Messiah.
There is a church called The Nazarenes, not the same.

Please go to netzari.org
Also hebraiccommunity.org/portal/web/guest/vision/foundations

Andrew Gabriel Roth is the author of the Aramaic English New Testament which he and other Aramaic Scholars translated from the Khabouris Codex dated 164 AD. The oldest New Testament writings known, and in the language Yeshua spoke. Copied 68 years after the writing of the book of Revalations. About 200 years before the oldest known Greek texts.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Walk With God
Ron

 

[ViaCrucis]

Constintine I had a lot to do with the Christian doctrine. Arius of Alexander began preaching nontriniterianist as he and his followers knew nothing about The Trinity. Arian Christianitity was very widely spread.

At the council of Necea none of the exPagans liked anything that Arius was saying, they where used to worshipping human gods that walk the earth. So the trinity was exempted by Constintine as the idea that Jesus, a man, was a god , appealed to former Pagans. So Arius was excommunicated. Arianism wasn't a denomination of chritianity, it was what the first people belived.

I was speaking g on Gnostic Christians, who where one of the first followers. Search for the gospel of Thomas.

The majority of bishops who met at Nicea were former victims of the persecutions under Diocletian. Somehow, I don't think they fit the bill of "exPagans [who] ... where [sic] used to worshiping human gods that walk the earth".

You also don't seem to have a grasp on Arianism. Arius taught that Jesus was God, just not the same God as God the Father. According to Arius, Jesus was a secondary God, a junior God, and the Creator Deity. This fit nicely with Platonic thought in which the Supreme God created a junior God (the Demiurge) for the purpose of creating the material universe.

Gnostics, by the way, appropriated such Platonic thinking in their cosmology. However they twisted Platonic thinking, making the Demiurge a devil-figure, a fallen godlette.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SteveCaruso]

Andrew Gabriel Roth is the author of the Aramaic English New Testament which he and other Aramaic Scholars translated from the Khabouris Codex dated 164 AD. The oldest New Testament writings known, and in the language Yeshua spoke. Copied 68 years after the writing of the book of Revalations. About 200 years before the oldest known Greek texts.

The Khabouris Codex was produced in the 12th century, not 164 AD, and is simply the standard text of the Syriac Peshitta, a 5th Century text.

 

[meNetzari]

The Khabouris Codex was produced in the 12th century, not 164 AD, and is simply the standard text of the Syriac Peshitta, a 5th Century text.

Yes My Error, it is a first generation copy of the 2nd century manuscript.


therefinersfire.org/khabouris_codex.htm


From Andrew Gabriel Roth:

All Aramaic manuscripts have a bookmark that dates them and includes the name of the scribe, where it was done, and the year it was done. Khabouris bookmark says: "Dated to the great persecution" which refers to the first widespread persecution under Nero, in 164 CE. This is not only my opinion; it's the opinion of the experts who are the custodians of the manuscript.

I have spent 15 years showing people proof that the Greek NT is full of readings that are mistranslations from Aramaic originals - i.e., Leper vs. jar maker, the missing generation in Matthew 1 in all Greek copies that is restored by translating correctly one Aramaic word, and so on....


Age: The AENT website says "The Khabouris Manuscript is a copy of a Second Century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD (internally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero, in 65 AD). Carbon dating has found this copy of the New Testament to be approximately 1,000 years old. Given its origins, this would make it a copy of the oldest known New Testament manuscript." Resources: 1) Unpublished writings of Abbott Gerrit Crawford, PhD, MSJ, Western-Rite Syrian Orthodox Church in America 2) Fr. Michael Ryce, N.D., D.C.P."

That makes the Khabouris itself from the 9th Century, but it is a copy of the original - meaning the scribe who made the copy, also copied the date information from the original, 2nd Century document.

According to Aramaic scholar and historian Andrew Gabriel Roth, scribes would put a "bookmark" of sorts in the document which identified them (i.e. the scribe) and the date of the work. So what this means, it is important to understand, the Khabouris is a "copy" - not done by an original, trained scribe, so the scribe who was doing the copy, simply copied the original scribe's marks into the Khabouris.

That being said, the Khabouris itself contains the words which were written in the 2nd Century (approximately 164 CE). This makes it contain the oldest known text of the New Testament. Of the oldest Greek manuscripts, the oldest dates from 3rd Century, making the date of the text in the Khabouris, approximately 50-60 years older.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If I'm a first century person living in a Greek and Roman world, and the vast majority of the people I want to write to only know Greek, what language do you think I should write in, the universal language of trade and discussion or a backwater language spoken by only a small handful of people in the known world?

If I'm a Jewish immigrant to the United States from the early 20th century and my family speaks Yiddish, but we've gotten pretty good at English; and I want to talk to my non-Yiddish speaking neighbors about my experiences back home, what language should I speak to them in: Yiddish or English?

There's a reason why the unanimous scholarly consensus is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The idea of an Aramaic original is ahistorical nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[meNetzari]

If I'm a first century person living in a Greek and Roman world, and the vast majority of the people I want to write to only know Greek, what language do you think I should write in, the universal language of trade and discussion or a backwater language spoken by only a small handful of people in the known world?

If I'm a Jewish immigrant to the United States from the early 20th century and my family speaks Yiddish, but we've gotten pretty good at English; and I want to talk to my non-Yiddish speaking neighbors about my experiences back home, what language should I speak to them in: Yiddish or English?

There's a reason why the unanimous scholarly consensus is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The idea of an Aramaic original is ahistorical nonsense.

-CryptoLutheran

If I'm a Jew who speaks Aramaic, writing about the Messiah who is a Jew, to other Jews who speak Aramaic ... Well I guess I could take the time to learn Greek and teach the other to read it, but then why would I put Hebrew idioms and word play into my writings which don't work in Greek.

A quote from a Jew hater (Luther) doesn't carry much weight with me. No more than the words of those that didn't allow any Jews or their ways into the Council of Nicaea.

YHWH chose it send his Only Begotten Son to a little back water, who taught in a backwater language.

 

[meNetzari]

Quoting Andrew Gabriel Roth from the AENT appendixes.
Aramaic or Greek Lingua Franca? Page 716

All of Rav Shaul’s (Paul) epistles -(with the possible exception of Philemon since it was sent through a Roman contact, then to the assembly) were sent to Synagogues that contained Jewish and Gentile believers whose halakha (legal faith practices) were governed by Ya’akov haTzadik (James the Just) head of the Jerusalem Assembly. This is why in Acts 9 and 15 James writes letters in Aramaic (about circumcision and other matters) for Rav Shaul to deliver. Once delivered, a meturgeman (targumist) would translate the letters into Greek for Greek speaking members. There is plenty of evidence indicating inconsistency of Greek translation quality of Paul’s original Aramaic letters. Galatians was a terrible translation disaster, but 1 Corinthians was reasonably well translated. But there is clear evidence that Rav Shaul was well aware that “wolves” were going to misconstrue everything he said to posture their own ideas, for example:

1) 1 Corinthians 16:22 has the Aramaic phrase Maran Atha (our Master [Y’shua] comes) but why would he write this to a Greek audience? Using Maran Atha indicates two things: a) This is a “distinguishing mark” that Rav Shaul refers to elsewhere as being in all his letters, a code word to authenticate his material from the many fakes that we know were circulating early… b) the expectation by this distinguishing mark indicates that at least one person at the synagogue would be able to translate that Aramaic phrase for a Greek audience. The NT shows elsewhere in Acts 10 that Hebrew synagogue services were translated into Greek for the benefit of people like Cornelius. There is no reason to assume given the similar letters that James has delivered to Jews and Gentiles that the exact same process did not happen from the Aramaic to Greek Epistles. By this method, everything Rav Shaul wrote, with the possible exception of Philemon, can be easily shown to have been tar gummed from Aramaic into Greek at the assembly level.

2) Paul states that he has a poor scribal hand/training in Galatians 6:11. He also admits in a variety of places that he has both co-writers and co-translators into Greek, as well as those who help him speak wherever he goes. We read in 2 Peter 3:15-16 where Peter states that Paul’s letters are “difficult to understand” and those who are “ignorant and unstable pervert” what he writes as well as the “other scripture”. Paul’s letters were not considered as “Scripture”. the Scripture was and is the Torah, Prophets and Writings (Tanakh) and evidently the “theologians” that Peter talks about did not have a foundation in Tanakh; plus, they most likely bungled Paul’s writings because of it. However, we also see that both letters to the Thessalonians are from “Paul, Silas and Timothy”. That is also why the scribe Tertius writes his own name at the end of Romans (16:22) and why John Mark’s absence at Pamphylia results in Rav Shaul needing to travel with Luke and others instead. Put simply, Rav Shaul goes nowhere outside of Israel without a Greek translator like Barnabbas, John Mark, Luke, etc.

3) There are many examples indicating good and bad targumming from Aramaic into Greek clearly indicating that Paul’s writings or dictation was originally in Aramaic.

End quote

Please note that the word for Assembly in Greek is translated in modern Bibles as either Church for an Assembly of Believers or Synagogue for Orthodox Jews. In fact they are the same word.
.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Constintine I had a lot to do with the Christian doctrine. Arius of Alexander began preaching nontriniterianist as he and his followers knew nothing about The Trinity. Arian Christianitity was very widely spread.

At the council of Necea none of the exPagans liked anything that Arius was saying, they where used to worshipping human gods that walk the earth. So the trinity was exempted by Constintine as the idea that Jesus, a man, was a god , appealed to former Pagans. So Arius was excommunicated. Arianism wasn't a denomination of chritianity, it was what the first people belived.

I was speaking g on Gnostic Christians, who where one of the first followers. Search for the gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas was written well after the New Testament, around the 250's.
The rest of this post is very revisionist. The only Constantine who had anything to do about Christianity was the founder of Constantinople, who simply made Christianity the religion of the realm. Yes, he tried to influence the hierarchy. Mostly, he failed. Constantine I was an Arian heretic. They were the first schismatics.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Yes My Error, it is a first generation copy of the 2nd century manuscript.

Roth is also not mentioning that the date on the colophon or "bookmark" is damaged. (From what I have seen, he tends to leave this very pertinent fact out.) It's very likely much, much later than that.

Simply put, it cannot be copied from a 2nd century manuscript, as the Peshitta (a document written in Classical Syriac) is a 4th-5th century text. If it were a 2nd century manuscript, it would have been written in Old Syriac.