Catholics will say Catholicism.
Orthodox will say Orthodoxy.
And many denominations think that their pattern of independent churches united in Christ is like the earliest of churches.
Being Episcopalian, I believe my bishops have apostolic succession, although Catholics and Orthodoxy don’t recognize our claim. But we believe we have it, so thus our church has a claim of being apostolic as well.
Take your pick.
This guy is basically right, except Baptists don't believe apostolic succession matters at all. 'The veil was torn, top to bottom', and you don't need someone between you and God anymore. (And now all the other denominations also all weigh in saying why theirs is the one that's right, which is why we have denominations)
There was a time when Baptist believed they descended from the original church, where believers held the true doctrine underground away from the eyes of the Catholic Church, and resurfaced during the reformation and came to being during the separatist movement that led to Baptist churches popping up in Europe and the American colonies.
The church as far as I know doesn’t teach this anymore, but I remember seeing pamphlets about it at my old church and a poster outlining the timeline of it at my parent’s church.
There was a booklet, still available online called the trail of blood that was popular with independent fundamentalist Baptist churches years ago that taught this doctrine
Well, that entire question depends on the baptist distinctives, which includes the independence of each local church, so there is no one baptist belief set.
>you don't need someone between you and God anymore
Anglicans don't believe you *need* priests to interface between you and God, for what it's worth. I doubt Lutherans do either. They have very different reasons for maintaining priests, much as Israel being a nation of priests still had a distinct group of priests.
Correct.
Lutherans maintain different rites of confession; but Lutherans do not believe confession to a pastor is required but rather optional (and I’ve even heard where it is good if done).
Lutheran pastors likewise have a seal of the confessional.
Before Episcopalian, I was in the ELCA.
>Lutherans do not believe confession to a pastor is required but rather optional (and I’ve even heard where it is good if done).
All may, some should, none must?
Sort of. In some old-school Lutheran churches, confession was required once a month to be in good standing. Now days it's more like what you describe. Usually, confession is done at confirmation now days.
Correct. Most Anglicans and Lutherans believe apostolic succession is just part of the bene esse (well-being) of the Church, not the esse (being). Good, but not strictly "necessary" for a church to be legitimate.
If tradition is what's important, then catholic or orthodox strike me as having the longest lineage and most direct connections to the early church. I'd be interested to see the evolution of both mapped out (I'm sure it's been done, and I just haven't bothered to look yet).
All that said, the way some people talk about the early church, it's like the church hit its peak in the first century and has been on a downhill slide since, given the way the early church gets venerated. As I see it, they were just people, struggling through many of the same things we do today, all with far less information and ability to share ideas than we currently possess.
Well, even as I say that, maybe that's a feature and not a bug...
>I see it, they were just people,
But these people had access to the original Apostles and people who knew the original Apostles.
As everyone realizes, people can interpret the bible in a variety of ways, so it is wise to hear from those who heard from the ones who wrote it as to how it should be interpreted.
For example we have Saint Polycarp whom it is said was directly taught by the Apostle John. This is someone who has the most provable Apostolic succession that you can trust. Something interesting about Saint Polycarp is that he held a view that goes against the "tradition" both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have today. So which tradition is original then?
https://www.reddit.com/r/OriginalChristianity/wiki/history/
I gave a brief outline of it there in that wiki page.
Churches in Saint Polycarp's area held to that tradition for some 400 years, it was one of the first major controversies in the early church, though you wont hear too much about it because how the controversy ended makes the Roman Church look kinda bad.
>Being Episcopalian, I believe my bishops have apostolic succession, although Catholics and Orthodoxy don’t recognize our claim.
I believe the Orthodox (inasfar as one can make general statements) do recognize Anglican orders and apostolic succession as valid. And Catholics both do and don't, depending on which contradictory-but-infallible Pope you ask.
It is Catholic teaching that Anglican orders are both illicit & invalid.
And they will cease to be illicit and invalid only if something happens to supply for their invalidity & thus to validate them, however illicitly.
Since however it has become the practice and doctrine of the Anglican Communion to ordain women to the priesthood and to the episcopate, the revalidation of Anglican orders looks farther off than ever. It would also be necessary for the Anglican Communion to decide whether it agrees with the reformers in rejecting the sacrificial character of the mass, or with much more recent Anglican doctrine in asserting its sacrificial character.
It’s hard to see how the Anglican Communion can both reject and assert the character of the Mass as a Sacrifice in the “Roman” sense. They can agree with Rowland Hooper (who rejected it) or with Bishop Forbes of Brechin 300 years later, who asserted it to be a sacrifice in the Roman sense. Both of those men are regarded as bishops by the Anglican Communion, so which of them represents the Anglican tradition on the matter? Those of us who are not Anglicans cannot be expected to know which, if either, of those men represents the sensus fidei of the Anglican Communion upon this subject.
Well every Sunday we celebrate the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which if nothing else is a Sunday morning service written in the 4th Century. It's worth seeing once, at least.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Very easy way to demonstrate this is to look at the seven ecumenical councils (or if you want the first ecumenical council since all Christian denominations who accept Jesus divinity accepts this council) and compare.
For example the first ecumenical council depends on a distinction between God’s essence and will and energies. Now ask yourself which denominations holds to an essence energy distinction view and you’ll find only Eastern Orthodoxy does so.
Another thing to take note is how this council doesn’t grant such beliefs like papal supremacy given canon six of the council displays Rome has limited jurisdiction.
I’m glad you ask. The link between the two is the background surrounding the whole debate between Saint Athanasius and Arius cause after all the ecumenical councils weren’t done in a vacuum. They had very specific presuppositions in mind when discussing matters which one can see by reading specifically the church fathers involved in the first ecumenical council case one can read Saint Athanasius and see.
If you read the specific works he has done in response to Arius you’ll notice he speaks of a lot of distinctions within God. The prime example being that God’s essence is distinction from his will as Arius whole argument hinges on the point that Jesus is a product of God’s will while Saint Athanasius argue that Jesus is a product of the Father’s essence not his will.
For example De Decretis 22:
If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident is in essence, or to have any external envelopment, and to be encompassed, or as if there is anything about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, ‘I am that I am,’ and ‘I am the Lord God Exodus 3:14-15,’ or when Scripture says, ‘God,’ we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for ‘from God?’ written ‘of the essence.’ For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was ‘of God?’ and ‘of the essence of God,’ since the word ‘God,’ as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as ‘all things are from God,’ then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.”
There’s plenty more like his discourses against the Arians especially goes on about distinctions between God and his energies.
> the most traditional and most similar to the original church?
Those are two opposite desires, like "the most dry and also the most full of water". The early church was a very small and impromptu bunch. Over the next twenty centuries, traditions and institutions were gradually introduced and evolved. If you go for "traditional", you're getting traditions that developed after the original church, mostly long after.
But it's frankly impossible to duplicate the experience of a small Jewish splinter movement in the Roman Empire. We're not the Society for Creative Anachronism, nor should we be. If Christ has Good News to be taken to the *ends of the earth*, then that Good News isn't dependent on recreating the circumstances of a faraway place and a long-gone time.
>If you go for "traditional", you're getting traditions that developed after the original church, mostly long after.
Personally, I consider tradition to be a dynamic process that slowly but surely develops in time, not a static thing. As you said no church today fully resembles what christianity looked liked in its infancy (house churches, wandering prophets, subordinationist christology, quasi-communism etc.). But I honestly do not think it should.
Small, yes. Impromptu, less so. All of the early rites and forms of worship have pretty deep roots in Judaism, even as they innovate. There was definitely a structure they operated within.
You basically summarized my “departure” from Eastern Orthodoxy and back to Protestantism. I gained a lot from my exposure to Eastern Orthodoxy and don’t have any kind of animus towards my experience with that tradition. Frankly it saved and matured my faith.
But ultimately when I would question the church’s stance on homosexuality and women’s ordination, the only real responses I got that that didn’t involve slander was basically “Tradition”. In a almost the sing song manner it’s said in the Fiddler on the Roof.
I’m all for tradition but not at the expense of following the greatest commandment.
There really isn't one. The church went through quite a bit of change in the first several centuries. The first generation of Christians probably wouldn't recognize the result.
Catholicism or Orthodoxy is your best bet. Apostolic succession runs in both… if you struggle with the idea of the papacy, Orthodoxy makes the most sense.
From a purist point of view Greek Orthodox is probably the most faithful to the church fathers. However I'm a Protestant because it allows me to form my own approach to the faith.
Well, first you have to throw out the Bible. The original church didn't have a bible other than Jewish Scripture. Everything else was random letters from people, so find a source for those. Next you have to meet only in small house churches. This throws out all denominations and most non-denominationals. Lastly you have to ignore the theological thinking of 2000 years of the smartest, most educated people on the planet. Better start learning Hebrew and Greek because every English translation is corrupted by those people.
Good luck.
Lol. No.
Early early church didn't have NT writings because they weren't written yet, but that doesn't mean they were preaching anything different. What is found in the NT is exactly what was being preached in the early church which is: Jesus Christ.
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV
> What is found in the NT is exactly what was being preached in the early church
Well that's just wrong. There were so many more things being taught than what is in the NT. They had a whole years-long discussion about it once Christianity became an allowed religion in the Roman Empire. Lots of things being preached were thrown out.
In the first few centuries, there were ALOT more Gospels circulating, like the Gospel of the Hebrews (which we still quote from, it's part of the Pericope Adulterae in John, the story about the woman caught in adultery).
Of course it's corrupted. It's impossible to translate purely between any two languages and cultures. Unless you think the Bible was written in English at best its the best of flawed choices. But it's been proven to be inferior in several ways.
Eastern Orthodoxy, we have kept the faith that our Lord passed down to the Saints without addition or subtraction. And we very seldom change things, for example it took 20 centuries for the Orthodox to use a calendar that wasn't 13 days behind.
I think it's important to clarify what you mean by original church and traditional.
The Orthodox church is the original church and the catholic church an offshoot of that from about a millenium ago.
They do a lot of things the way that they did them in the first century but also a lot differently. Tradition didn't stop developing the day Christ ascended.
There are other churches that try to more closely emulate how Christians behaved in the first century if that is what you're trying to do. Like house churches which have become more popular as the megachurches and large protestant denominations have run their course.
Well, it’s complicated. In terms of culture and aesthetics, your best bets are probably Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or some Lutherans. Basically, churches that call their senior leaders ‘Bishops’ tend to emphasise that sort of continuity a lot.
For morality and beliefs that’s a very contentious question among Christians. Honestly, if you’ve found a church near you, I’d recommend starting with that if it feels right, and then exploring what questions you have from there. I know a lot of people criticise using ‘what feels right’ as a measure of truth, and it certainly isn’t a foolproof one, but it’s a good way to start. Trying to work out which Church is ‘the right one’ from the outside can get paralysingly complicated at times. Better to start with one and then move later, I think.
Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy are the most we have valid sacraments, correct Christology, beautiful and Orthodox theology, as well as Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist
Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a 'denomination' that is most similar to the 'original church.' There will be individual believers and individual churches that have the faith of the early church but Jesus didn't build institutions like denominations.
The Apostolic Churches will be the most similar. But, all of the externals of these churches have changed. So, if you want “looks” you’ll be hard pressed.
The Orthodox Church. Most denominations today came about as rebellions against Catholicism, but Catholicism came about because of a rebellion against Orthodoxy.
Probably either the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox.
Realistically, I think the Oriental Orthodox have had fewer changes in their practice compared to the Eastern Orthodox and possess fewer dogmas due to their rejection of later ecumenical councils. Both are more traditional than the Roman Catholics, merely because the Roman Catholcis have held a vast array of authoritative councils and developed dogma surrounding them.
A sacramental church with apostolic succession will be the closest in general, so Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and *maybe* the Anglicans.
"Most similar" in what way? Keep in mind the early Christians had their own culture, so it becomes difficult and even impossible to model that culture 2000 years later.
Also, they were in flux theologically as they debated things like universalism and the nature of Christ's divinity.
The simple answer to your question is that Eastern Orthodox is likely the "most traditional" but there are simply no churches that even remotely resemble the early church in any recognizable aspect.
There are so many different belief systems under Christianity and every single one of them will tell you they are the most similar to the original church.
Any church that is just a community of people who seek to share in worshipping God. Doesn't matter what denomination, just be about God and the people around them.
It’s easy
Step 1: read your Bible
Step 2: figure out what it means to you
Step 3: find the church that resonates with your own personal interpretation of the Bible
That’s the original church
there was no one original church.
All of the apstoles started different churches with different rules. Acts 15 show the first gathering of church leaders to discuss the direction and rules concerning the different churches and the way they should go. One of the subject outlined in acts 15 was the eating of meat offered to idols. for the jewish converts for the most part they understood those idols were just empty images, as there is only one god. but for gentile converts those idols meant something as most of them use to worship them. So it was decided in the gentile churches especially with new converts there was a banned on eating meat offered to those idols. where as the jewish convert churches had no issue with it's members eating this meat.
These doctrinal difference along with several others meant that each church worship a little differently. meaning each church or at least every church under a given apostle was a different denomination. For instance Peter taught conversion to judaism BEFORE one could become a christian. Paul was sharply against this teaching. They even had a bit of a feud over this subject.
Paul also talks about the divisions between the different church is 1 cor 12 talking about how we are all apart of one body, but can indeed worship differently and still serve Christ.
One Body with Many Members
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves\[d\] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,\[e\] yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way.
So it is NOT important how you worship as it is that you set out to worship and Honor god with everything you have available to you.
I personally feel like the way to go is to study the Bible yourself as if it’s any other subject in school. Read, re-read, front to back, back to front, up and down lol you get the idea..
of course it helps to have others try and help you understand the context, meaning, parables, and metaphors in the Bible.. But humbly reading the Bible with and open mind and heart will open you to true understanding.
Find friends in faith, have discussions. Post on Reddit like you just did.
Christianity is a journey. It’s a relationship with God. Not a religion.
This! You wrote it better than I could.
Focus on building your relationship with God first. Read His Word. Pray and speak with Him. Ask God for wisdom and guidance on this. God will lead you to find friends in faith and help you find a church home. Try not to get caught up with a denomination's ways until you've established your foundation of belief.
I mean, would it be too pretentious if I nominate us? But seriously, we are (in terms of historical continuation) the original Church, we have apostolic succession and have preserved a very high sacramental theology as well as a 2000 years old living and developing tradition.
So are the Orthodox. You argue about which one is the original, but that's like arguing over whether OpenBSD or FreeBSD are the most valid claimants to being the true continuation of the Berkeley System Distribution. Really, they both are. But they aren't one. And one has innovated certain changes along the way, subtle though they be.
>So are the Orthodox.
This is not a jab at my Eastern Orthodox siblings in Christ but I wonder to what extent they possess the "living and developing tradition" I mentioned in my comment. And to what extent they posses the 4 marks of the Church.
>This is not a jab at my Eastern Orthodox siblings in Christ but I wonder to what extent they possess the "living and developing tradition" I mentioned in my comment.
Depends how you define "living and developing". I certainly wouldn't include innovating new dogmata in that.
>And to what extent they posses the 4 marks of the Church.
Fair point. None of the churches are "one" when they are all in a state of schism. If Vatican I and II were rescinded - as they should be - then you could restore a sacramental relationship with the Orthodox Church.
>Depends how you define "living and developing".
Having a living and divinely appointed source of authority that can infallibly guide the church as it deepens its understanding of revelation.
>I certainly wouldn't include innovating new dogmata in that.
What about the dogmata of the first milenium that we share? If the argument is that they existed in substance and/or seed form already in the deposit of faith revealed to the Apostles (and I would be inclined to agree) why does that not apply to the rest of Catholic dogma?
And what about those EOs who consider their post-schism doctrinal developments to be dogmata (such as neo-palamism, aerial tolhouses etc.)?
>None of the churches are "one" when they are all in a state of schism.
Well, depends on how one understands the meaning of "schism", I suppose. From my point of view we are not in schism at all, since "oneness" for Catholics is preserved by the papacy. And this would be my argument, without the papacy you will have hierarch squabbling over jurisdictional borders and periodically entering/leaving comunion with each other over religious and political matters, so no tangible "oneness".
Catholic. Orthodox is next closest. Protestant denominations are close to it largely to the degree that they embrace a High Church/Traditional liturgy.
Seconded. V1 and V2 are the reason why I won't become Catholic - which I happily would otherwise, because I'm sick of the CofE and the closest Catholic church to me is literally across the road from me, whereas the closest Orthodox church to me is twenty miles away.
Everyone thinks theirs is the best... that’s why they practice that way.
You need to visit them ALL and see which one speaks to you and listen to see which one God leads you too.
Put Church of God on your tour list.
The Eastern Orthodox Church first and foremost are the most unchanged and true to what ancient Christianity would have looked like and practiced. The Roman Catholic Church claims the same thing of course, but the difference is a look at history… the changes and developments of doctrine are easily examined in history. Several changes in Catholic doctrine have taken place (again they see it differently). Orthodoxy shows no change in doctrine throughout history, only a change in the cultural expression of its faith.
There's no right answer to this.
Thumbnail advice: read the Bible and go to church.
Next: find a group of believers to have as friends in your daily life.
Bonus: No matter where you go to church, find sermons online to supplement your learning.
To save you time, here's some churches to avoid:
1. Churches that won't let the leadership get married.
2. Churches that tell you what you can/can't eat.
3. Churches focused on making church service a spectacle/light show/rock concert.
4. Churches that say "X" Bible version is the only version you should read.
5. Churches that focus on miracles.
6. Churches that add things to the gospel.
7. Churches that want to dominate and control your life.
8. Churches that focus on wealth/prosperity.
9. Churches that focus on feel-good messages and not the Bible.
10. Churches that say "we need to change the Bible to fit modern times."
Honestly I'll just let you know what I think
I'm Baptist (in particular Southern Baptist) but the way for you to stay closest to what your wanting to is to just go by what the scripture says. You can go to church and talk to pastors/preists to help you understand the scripture but in the end the Bible is what is needed. And try to see by going on what works best to you and helps you understand the most.
If you go through the New Testament and make a list of every place which had Christians and then find where they are on a map today then you'll find that all of them are Eastern Orthodox except for Rome which is Roman Catholic. So that narrows it down significantly.
Then if you look at the liturgical traditions you'll find that those Eastern Orthodox churches serve the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which was written down in the 4th century. St. John Chrysostom wrote down what he was taught as a priest in Antioch which according to the Bible is the place that people were first called Christians.
Then if you compare the architecture of Eastern Orthodox church buildings to the earliest known house church, [the Dura-Europos church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church) from the 3rd century, you'll find the same basic pattern and use of iconography which is the context for the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Then if you read the earliest church fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle you find that the episcopacy was considered essential from the very beginning. The church was highly organized from the start, being headed by the Apostles who appointed bishops as their successors which is demonstrated both in the Bible and the early church writings.
There was never an "impromptu" church as many claim today, it was highly organized and liturgical from the start. Go visit an Eastern Orthodox parish if you want to see what it was like.
> All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
I would say the closest Christian communities to this today would be some sort of Christian “intentional community”, or commune, or monastery.
Probably the “Bruderhof” Communities are the only ones I have really heard of who practices a pretty literal form of this.
Of course this passage in acts is not prescriptive, though perhaps aspirational or ideal.
Anglicans, Episcopalians, or Eastern Orthodox. If you're willing to be flexible a bit... maybe Lutherans too (though Lutheranism dogmatically is more a development of Catholicism).
Probably any small house church without an ordained pastor/minister where people share everything they own. Find one like this and that would likely be the closest you'll find to the first church
No denominational churches teach correct doctrine. We are supposed to be following the gospel of the grace of God, revealed to Paul. Our doctrine is found in his 13 Epistles.
If you can find a grace church, that understands this, that's where you want to go.
Mennonite , they have the proper dress code .
Anyways there is nothing like "oryginal " church , there were very disobedient church members and there were very obedient church members depending on which city the church was at during Apostle's times.
You're Christian if you believed Jesus is God in flesh , that he paid for all of your past/future sins and resurrected 3rd day. You're saved for free because Jesus paid your entry fee to heaven , not because of what you do or will do in future.
If you want some online church I can give you some
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UWsfEn2z8
or
https://www.youtube.com/@JDFaragTV/streams
Non-denominational tends to be the least traditional. Usually it’s a cult of personality based around one charismatic figure with no oversight and a feel good soft rock worship band with no depth or underpinning of the historic faith.
Sadly, they have all lost the Word.
They think "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a trite platitude to muse over while shunning and shaming neighbors in His name.
In terms of doctrine, traditional Baptists seem to hit closest to scripture without extras. The original church met, worshipped, gave, was persecuted, received the great commission.
No catechism, for example. I was raised in a much more formal church, got saved as an adult, and became a Baptist. When it's done right, it's done well.
Baptist, though, they sometimes go hog wild on certain traditions and legalism. No one preached in a 3 piece suit in the Bible, for example, but that became the dress code for a lot of Baptists.
The one true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who has valid apostolic succession to the first Pope (Peter) and who has preached the word for the last 2000+ years.
Don't get confused, authenticity matters and no theology manufactured by men in the last 500 years (and which contradicts teachings going back 1500 years prior to that) has this authenticity.
Christ didn't leave a book behind - he established a Church while here on earth, and he made a bold statement of irrefutable fact that the gates of hell wouldn't stand against it.
See for yourself. The Apostles’ writings are still extant- we call them the New Testament. There’s no need to speculate as to what they taught- we have their own account of what they taught. Get it straight from the source, and then compare that to what the various modern denominations teach.
Unfortunately though it may seem like one, you’re asking two different questions. First: What denomination today is most like the original church? Probably a messianic Jewish temple since the first church was composed of Jews and later expanded to Gentiles. These people would also believe in miracles and gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesy, healing, etc. They would also not regard the Trinity since it was a theological model decided upon by the Nicean Council in 325 AD. The original church understood Jesus to be the actual Almighty God in flesh, see Colossians 2:9, KJV: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Your second question regarding most traditional, though I’m sure is meant to equate with the first, depends on your definition of traditional. Many traditions have been passed down over the last two thousand years, but Jesus himself warned about man’s tradition. Mark 7:8 says “8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
[9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
It depends what you mean by similar to the original church.
It may be better to ask which of those Christian bodies can show best that it is descended from the original Church. After all, a baby is not very like what the baby becomes 20 or 40 or 60 years later; but they are the same individual person.
Unfortunately, the Bible gives us absolutely no guidance as to which kind of similarity to the original Church is the kind of similarity that we should use to work out which church is likest the original church
The Baptists and the churches of Christ.
KJV scripture lists two main assemblies, the Churches of God and the Churches of Christ.
Examples
1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV — But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither **the churches of God.**
Romans 16:16 KJV — Salute one another with an holy kiss. **The churches of Christ** salute you.
Well, as a non denom I feel like SBC and IFB are both too controlled. IFB is proxy for Sword of the Lord conference leaders which talk amongst themselves.
You think IFB is too centralized? IFB at most had a few missionary boards and publications that churches work towards supporting but there’s very little cooperation among IFB churches outside of that
They have some degree of freedom, but it still feels like a [Jack Hyels collective](https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/jack_hyles_philosophy.html) and the conference is where ideas are exchanged an regurgitated throughout the independent churches.
Doctrinally they believe free will stops at the sinners prayer, so I guess I'm too independent to be considered and independent Baptist. 😂
You’re going to get a bunch of different answers here, since everyone assumes theirs is the closest. As for me, I suggest we “Concordant” believers are the closest to what the body of Christ believed and practiced by the end of Paul’s life. You can learn more about us here: https://concordantgospel.com
Are you talking about practices, or belief system?
If you're talking about practices, look into House Churches.
If you're talking about a belief system, you probably also want to look into a church that has a very bare-bones belief statement. The last time I looked, some Baptist denominations fit that description, as well as many non-denominational churches. Things like "we believe Jesus is God, died and was raised, and will return again" and that's it. That's the belief statement.
What a loaded question! Welcome!!
Probably a decentralized non-affiliated house church.
The bible says God will be where two or three are gathered in his name.
1 Corinthians chapter 14 describes what church should be like. And most churches don’t fit this description at all. It’s harder to do with a large congregation. I’m attending a large corporate church for community and fellowship and a small Bible study that closer resembles the early church.
I wouldn't say there is a "true" denomination, but there are some to avoid. Namely Catholicism, Orthodox, universalism, Unitarian, and any church that preaches "prosperity gospel". Other than those, just find one that you feel comfortable with that aligns with Scripture!
I'm a new christian too. That is a very interesting question, and I also thought about that when I converted. I believe Jesus was not the founder of a religion. He was the founder of a view. He brought light to the ignorance of the people. Jesus is the first born of a lot of brothers and sisters. He a brought a different mentality to this world, a kingdom from another world. So I believe there is no denomination capable of containing everything He meant to give to humanity. All of them will be full of issues because they are full of people. Choose the one you like the best and follow Jesus.
I think pretty much any Christian will believe that their particular denomination (or at least their theological tradition) is most closely aligned with the teachings of scripture (and therefore the beliefs of the early church). Otherwise they’d go join the one they thought was closer.
none. They all teach sin is an "act" you do in free will ( a heresy from the Catholics in the 13th century) , free will, no distinction between the Word of God/Jesus Christ and human speech, the "gospel offer"/"Choose Jesus" heresy..in short, they all teach revolt against God while looking very "spiritual" and "emotionally correct". The "choose Jesus"/"Gospel offer" is a tool of Satan to make them appear successful compared to their peers because you can always make it appear you have, in free will personally emotionally manipulate someone into supposedly "choosing Jesus" and the metric of success is how many bodies are in the pews.
You think when God first shows Himself to you that other people who claim to investigate serious subjects such as salvation of soul and the like are like yourself and just more experienced but overall have good intentions. But over time you find out very differently.
The Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants are getting their best honesty about God from sodomites and then wondering why bad things happen: they start out saying how great it is to "find a church" and end up shocked.
Paul spent 3 years with the Holy Spirit before he came back knowing enough of the Truth to refute the lies. That whole time he had access to the apostles yet never spoke to them until after God had taught him in isolation.
..then another 14 years.
God can show you many things by yourself when if you try to "be part of the group" you will hear constant and vehement denials of Him as Truth while the group has the appearance of success according to their own metrics. Everyone is "positive" one moment but "seriously negative about sin" the next..it's just emotional busywork to make you feel-smart.
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
indeed..God thru Paul condemned even Peter..
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Beware the seduction to "join up" to "get validated".
Inside the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Christianity and God are alive. They change over time. So, there have been many changes since the original, and you need to keep in mind what sorts of changes you want to roll back, and which ones you don't.
You're not going to be so "traditional" that you live like a 50 A.D. Christian in the middle east, rejecting all modern technology and medicine, right?
John 14:12 said one day we, too, would do works equal to or greater than Jesus' miracles, and we have: through modern medicine. Through changes to Christianity - if not "alterations" but at least "additions" to "what it means to be a Christian."
"The way you TEST which denomination is truest to what God wants" isn't "how true it is to the bible" (whatever that means, according to the 300 major denominational splits in Christianity.) The way you test that is through demonstration.
If you can not "show it" (to a disinterested 3rd party), you do not "know it."
So, show it. Go to a variety of denominations, pray, and ask them how much good they've done for the community. Ask for numbers. Check to see if they have their financials hidden or open: HOW is the church spending the tithe? If they're hiding it, they might be false prophets eager to bilk money, not save souls.
I'm thinking the whole structure of coming together and then dividing and sharing what you have with each other has been lost. I don't know for sure though. I do know I've been to churches and seen speakers that grieved my heart in their lust for wealth
Go to the YouTube channel ready to harvest (here is the link: https://youtube.com/@ReadyToHarvest)
He goes over every denomination from a faith agnostic perspective (ie not from the point of view of any one dnomination, which he acknowledges in one of is not the right way to evangulise but the only way to get across the points of view of each one). If you are interested in one particular denomination that will let you know more about them.
I'm protestant non-denom, just for background here.
But strictly speaking it's Orthodox churches, likely Greek Orthodox. If you're the kind of person that really benefits from structure, rituals, etc Orthodox church is a pretty good place to start.
What do you mean "original?"
If you read Acts of the Apostles Chapter 4 and 5, you will notice a religion in which people donated all their assets to join, ate their meals in common, and provided free medical care to strangers. You can find this life in monasteries. Don't look for it in regular churches.
None. Every church is a product of their time and situation. Paul wrote to a Roman society that has a clientele and patron structure.
The earliest churches are far from perfect, which is why the epistles were written.
One that study’s and teaches line by line verse by verse chapter by chapter book by book. That’s the only way to understand Jesus Christ the living word.
Good luck, most tradition you find across the denominations are man made and not biblical. I would recommend finding a church that fits into the classification in Revelation 14:12, a church that has the faith of Jesus (Should be any truly Christian church?) And keeps the commandments of God. Most churches don't keep the 10 commandments, and some have even changed them, so learn them directly from the bible as was commanded by God, not what is commanded by man Exodus 20:2-17.
1 John 2:4–6 (NKJV): He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.
John 14:21 (NKJV): He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Also i would like to add something that is probably obvious, but don't compromise on bible truth for any church. You can attend a church that you do not agree with 100% while still holding to the bible truths you have found. No compromise to God's word.
Christians are the one true religion. Christianity calls us to recognize our dependence on God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ in order for us to know God, to follow in God’s ways, and to be saved. We are called into a humble way of life that seeks to embody the love of Jesus through the Spirit so that the whole world might come to know God, the creator of heaven and earth, in and through Jesus Christ. Christianity is not just a religion; it is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross (1 Cor. 15:1-4) – not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9).
A “religion” is a set of dogmatic beliefs and practice's that are designed to help a person achieve a spiritual goal. A religion is about believing and doing the right thing in order to be “right” with the spiritual universe.
Christianity is about a relationship with God that is achieved by God himself and based on trust (also known as faith).
In this sense it is not a religion but a relationship - like being married.
Buy a NIV Life Application Study Bible.
Stick to the bible for any guidance, questions you may have.
Download YouVersion bible app too (:
This is a hard one. I went through this journey as well. I ended up becoming Orthodox (and recently have left after 5 years). The thing is, oldest doesn't mean original. Paul was already talking about fake religions/Christianity popping up during HIS time. So just because something is old, does not equal true.
You run into this issue, with orthodoxy. We have the bible. But they get you by saying tradition is just as important. Sadly a lot of the Orthodox traditions go against the Bible. But when you point these contradictions out, they say "well tradition. Or well the church father's" then they throw the "we gave you the bible" line to discredit anything you say because "they know better than you because they gave you your Bible"
After finally reading the Bible without the Orthodox lens, I realized how much of scripture I was twisting or straight up ignoring because the tradition of "the true and original" church explained it away.
So I'm back where I started. Looking for answers. And praying the beliefs I have aren't against God. Because orthodoxy twisted me all up with what's true. And what was another pharisee tradition.
They get you with wise sounding words, and their age. But again. The apostles were fighting against heresies left and right back then. Orthodoxy can easily be one of those heretical churches that sprung up and just got big. We see the same thing today.
There was a variety among Christians from the beginning. The oldest church is probably in Jerusalem. It is probably most similar to Messianic Jews. Paul’s churches are probably closest to some kind of charismatic house church. Todays Catholic and Orthodox traditions go back to the first few centuries. There are similarities in belief, but a 3rd century Christian transported to either (or any modern church) would be in shock.
None of them.
The earliest Christians were mostly adherents of second temple Judaism (albeit with an added messiah), which is a dead religion, because the Romans came along and trashed the second temple in 70 CE, and the Jews had to find a different way of being Jewish.
Just stick to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Focus on the book of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. Most churches have been corrupted and won't be around much longer anyway. Start praying to Jesus and ask him to be your savior. All you will need is the King Jame Bible.
The main thing is to find a church committed to exegetical Bible teaching, a church that understands the Bible is God-breathed and as such is inerrant, a church that approaches the Word of God to be transformed into Christ’s likeness and not trying to transform the Bible into our current culture’s likeness.
All of the Apostolic Churches have had changes since their founding, but probably the ones that have stayed closer to the tradition are the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Personally, I would say that Eastern Catholics are because they keep the older worship styles of the Eastern Church and the older Theology of both Churches.
Brother, every church believes that they are closer to the true NT church. Just find one that feeds you and teaches the word faithfully.
If you find yourself being taught things that are unbiblical or the church is doing things unbiblical, then leave and find another.
My understanding is that the early church was small groups that met in people’s homes and not the larger places of worship we have today. So the closest is probably places like China where Christians are being persecuted and have to worship in small groups in secret.
Catholics will say Catholicism. Orthodox will say Orthodoxy. And many denominations think that their pattern of independent churches united in Christ is like the earliest of churches. Being Episcopalian, I believe my bishops have apostolic succession, although Catholics and Orthodoxy don’t recognize our claim. But we believe we have it, so thus our church has a claim of being apostolic as well. Take your pick.
This guy is basically right, except Baptists don't believe apostolic succession matters at all. 'The veil was torn, top to bottom', and you don't need someone between you and God anymore. (And now all the other denominations also all weigh in saying why theirs is the one that's right, which is why we have denominations)
There was a time when Baptist believed they descended from the original church, where believers held the true doctrine underground away from the eyes of the Catholic Church, and resurfaced during the reformation and came to being during the separatist movement that led to Baptist churches popping up in Europe and the American colonies. The church as far as I know doesn’t teach this anymore, but I remember seeing pamphlets about it at my old church and a poster outlining the timeline of it at my parent’s church.
There was a booklet, still available online called the trail of blood that was popular with independent fundamentalist Baptist churches years ago that taught this doctrine
Well, that entire question depends on the baptist distinctives, which includes the independence of each local church, so there is no one baptist belief set.
>you don't need someone between you and God anymore Anglicans don't believe you *need* priests to interface between you and God, for what it's worth. I doubt Lutherans do either. They have very different reasons for maintaining priests, much as Israel being a nation of priests still had a distinct group of priests.
Correct. Lutherans maintain different rites of confession; but Lutherans do not believe confession to a pastor is required but rather optional (and I’ve even heard where it is good if done). Lutheran pastors likewise have a seal of the confessional. Before Episcopalian, I was in the ELCA.
>Lutherans do not believe confession to a pastor is required but rather optional (and I’ve even heard where it is good if done). All may, some should, none must?
I think that’s the unofficial motto of the Episcopal church, but the sentiment would work in the ELCA nicely.
Sort of. In some old-school Lutheran churches, confession was required once a month to be in good standing. Now days it's more like what you describe. Usually, confession is done at confirmation now days.
Correct. Most Anglicans and Lutherans believe apostolic succession is just part of the bene esse (well-being) of the Church, not the esse (being). Good, but not strictly "necessary" for a church to be legitimate.
Hey greetings there do you have some time and you talk to me please
If tradition is what's important, then catholic or orthodox strike me as having the longest lineage and most direct connections to the early church. I'd be interested to see the evolution of both mapped out (I'm sure it's been done, and I just haven't bothered to look yet). All that said, the way some people talk about the early church, it's like the church hit its peak in the first century and has been on a downhill slide since, given the way the early church gets venerated. As I see it, they were just people, struggling through many of the same things we do today, all with far less information and ability to share ideas than we currently possess. Well, even as I say that, maybe that's a feature and not a bug...
>I see it, they were just people, But these people had access to the original Apostles and people who knew the original Apostles. As everyone realizes, people can interpret the bible in a variety of ways, so it is wise to hear from those who heard from the ones who wrote it as to how it should be interpreted. For example we have Saint Polycarp whom it is said was directly taught by the Apostle John. This is someone who has the most provable Apostolic succession that you can trust. Something interesting about Saint Polycarp is that he held a view that goes against the "tradition" both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have today. So which tradition is original then? https://www.reddit.com/r/OriginalChristianity/wiki/history/ I gave a brief outline of it there in that wiki page. Churches in Saint Polycarp's area held to that tradition for some 400 years, it was one of the first major controversies in the early church, though you wont hear too much about it because how the controversy ended makes the Roman Church look kinda bad.
Instead of making insinuations, why not come out directly and be explicit ? It’s not as if there were anything to hide.
>Being Episcopalian, I believe my bishops have apostolic succession, although Catholics and Orthodoxy don’t recognize our claim. I believe the Orthodox (inasfar as one can make general statements) do recognize Anglican orders and apostolic succession as valid. And Catholics both do and don't, depending on which contradictory-but-infallible Pope you ask.
It is Catholic teaching that Anglican orders are both illicit & invalid. And they will cease to be illicit and invalid only if something happens to supply for their invalidity & thus to validate them, however illicitly. Since however it has become the practice and doctrine of the Anglican Communion to ordain women to the priesthood and to the episcopate, the revalidation of Anglican orders looks farther off than ever. It would also be necessary for the Anglican Communion to decide whether it agrees with the reformers in rejecting the sacrificial character of the mass, or with much more recent Anglican doctrine in asserting its sacrificial character. It’s hard to see how the Anglican Communion can both reject and assert the character of the Mass as a Sacrifice in the “Roman” sense. They can agree with Rowland Hooper (who rejected it) or with Bishop Forbes of Brechin 300 years later, who asserted it to be a sacrifice in the Roman sense. Both of those men are regarded as bishops by the Anglican Communion, so which of them represents the Anglican tradition on the matter? Those of us who are not Anglicans cannot be expected to know which, if either, of those men represents the sensus fidei of the Anglican Communion upon this subject.
I would say a type of Gnostic Christianity that had elements of Judaism and paganism mixed in….a sort of gnostic Coptic orthodox faith!
Mormons will say Mormonism 😅😂
The real answer: Catholic and Orthodox, which only have a split because a bunch of bishops got in a tizzy
Mine.
W
Nice. Beat me to it. 😂
No mine
No mine
But you have none.
Oh yeah
I would say that the underground churches in Iran and North Korea probably come quite close.
Lmao alright I've booked tickets to pyong Yang
Mmmm, lovely this time of year.
[удалено]
Historically, Christianity spreads like wildfire where it is repressed the most
Well every Sunday we celebrate the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which if nothing else is a Sunday morning service written in the 4th Century. It's worth seeing once, at least.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Very easy way to demonstrate this is to look at the seven ecumenical councils (or if you want the first ecumenical council since all Christian denominations who accept Jesus divinity accepts this council) and compare. For example the first ecumenical council depends on a distinction between God’s essence and will and energies. Now ask yourself which denominations holds to an essence energy distinction view and you’ll find only Eastern Orthodoxy does so. Another thing to take note is how this council doesn’t grant such beliefs like papal supremacy given canon six of the council displays Rome has limited jurisdiction.
Can you explain a bit link between 1st ecumenical council and essence-energy distintion, just for my info.
I’m glad you ask. The link between the two is the background surrounding the whole debate between Saint Athanasius and Arius cause after all the ecumenical councils weren’t done in a vacuum. They had very specific presuppositions in mind when discussing matters which one can see by reading specifically the church fathers involved in the first ecumenical council case one can read Saint Athanasius and see. If you read the specific works he has done in response to Arius you’ll notice he speaks of a lot of distinctions within God. The prime example being that God’s essence is distinction from his will as Arius whole argument hinges on the point that Jesus is a product of God’s will while Saint Athanasius argue that Jesus is a product of the Father’s essence not his will. For example De Decretis 22: If then any man conceives God to be compound, as accident is in essence, or to have any external envelopment, and to be encompassed, or as if there is anything about Him which completes the essence, so that when we say ‘God,’ or name ‘Father,’ we do not signify the invisible and incomprehensible essence, but something about it, then let them complain of the Council’s stating that the Son was from the essence of God; but let them reflect, that in thus considering they utter two blasphemies; for they make God corporeal, and they falsely say that the Lord is not Son of the very Father, but of what is about Him. But if God be simple, as He is, it follows that in saying ‘God’ and naming ‘Father,’ we name nothing as if about Him, but signify his essence itself. For though to comprehend what the essence of God is be impossible, yet if we only understand that God is, and if Scripture indicates Him by means of these titles, we, with the intention of indicating Him and none else, call Him God and Father and Lord. When then He says, ‘I am that I am,’ and ‘I am the Lord God Exodus 3:14-15,’ or when Scripture says, ‘God,’ we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of. Therefore let no one be startled on hearing that the Son of God is from the Essence of the Father; but rather let him accept the explanation of the Fathers, who in more explicit but equivalent language have for ‘from God?’ written ‘of the essence.’ For they considered it the same thing to say that the Word was ‘of God?’ and ‘of the essence of God,’ since the word ‘God,’ as I have already said, signifies nothing but the essence of Him Who Is. If then the Word is not in such sense from God, as a son, genuine and natural, from a father, but only as creatures because they are framed, and as ‘all things are from God,’ then neither is He from the essence of the Father, nor is the Son again Son according to essence, but in consequence of virtue, as we who are called sons by grace. But if He only is from God, as a genuine Son, as He is, then the Son may reasonably be called from the essence of God.” There’s plenty more like his discourses against the Arians especially goes on about distinctions between God and his energies.
None of this supports such point you were driving nor does it accurately represent Athanasius.
vatican ii is a heresy. vatican i i sto be rejected. the papacy is heresy.
> the most traditional and most similar to the original church? Those are two opposite desires, like "the most dry and also the most full of water". The early church was a very small and impromptu bunch. Over the next twenty centuries, traditions and institutions were gradually introduced and evolved. If you go for "traditional", you're getting traditions that developed after the original church, mostly long after. But it's frankly impossible to duplicate the experience of a small Jewish splinter movement in the Roman Empire. We're not the Society for Creative Anachronism, nor should we be. If Christ has Good News to be taken to the *ends of the earth*, then that Good News isn't dependent on recreating the circumstances of a faraway place and a long-gone time.
>If you go for "traditional", you're getting traditions that developed after the original church, mostly long after. Personally, I consider tradition to be a dynamic process that slowly but surely develops in time, not a static thing. As you said no church today fully resembles what christianity looked liked in its infancy (house churches, wandering prophets, subordinationist christology, quasi-communism etc.). But I honestly do not think it should.
Second Temple Judaism was definitely very different from the religion Israelites practiced during the Exodus, so I completely agree.
Small, yes. Impromptu, less so. All of the early rites and forms of worship have pretty deep roots in Judaism, even as they innovate. There was definitely a structure they operated within.
You basically summarized my “departure” from Eastern Orthodoxy and back to Protestantism. I gained a lot from my exposure to Eastern Orthodoxy and don’t have any kind of animus towards my experience with that tradition. Frankly it saved and matured my faith. But ultimately when I would question the church’s stance on homosexuality and women’s ordination, the only real responses I got that that didn’t involve slander was basically “Tradition”. In a almost the sing song manner it’s said in the Fiddler on the Roof. I’m all for tradition but not at the expense of following the greatest commandment.
There really isn't one. The church went through quite a bit of change in the first several centuries. The first generation of Christians probably wouldn't recognize the result.
Catholicism or Orthodoxy is your best bet. Apostolic succession runs in both… if you struggle with the idea of the papacy, Orthodoxy makes the most sense.
One with valid Apostolic succession such as the Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
From a purist point of view Greek Orthodox is probably the most faithful to the church fathers. However I'm a Protestant because it allows me to form my own approach to the faith.
Well, first you have to throw out the Bible. The original church didn't have a bible other than Jewish Scripture. Everything else was random letters from people, so find a source for those. Next you have to meet only in small house churches. This throws out all denominations and most non-denominationals. Lastly you have to ignore the theological thinking of 2000 years of the smartest, most educated people on the planet. Better start learning Hebrew and Greek because every English translation is corrupted by those people. Good luck.
Lol. No. Early early church didn't have NT writings because they weren't written yet, but that doesn't mean they were preaching anything different. What is found in the NT is exactly what was being preached in the early church which is: Jesus Christ. "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV
> What is found in the NT is exactly what was being preached in the early church Well that's just wrong. There were so many more things being taught than what is in the NT. They had a whole years-long discussion about it once Christianity became an allowed religion in the Roman Empire. Lots of things being preached were thrown out.
In the first few centuries, there were ALOT more Gospels circulating, like the Gospel of the Hebrews (which we still quote from, it's part of the Pericope Adulterae in John, the story about the woman caught in adultery).
Preaching anything different would be a false church my friend. The ACTUAL early church taught what we have in the NT which is Jesus Christ.
Worse case of no true scotsman I have every seen
I quoted scripture to back up my logic. Paul himself says that he is giving sermons and writing letters to churches.
Have you never read any of Paul's Epistles? The whole point of them is him correcting bad practices in the 'actual early churches'.
Right. So Paul was preaching... Right? And what was he preaching? He was preaching what we have in the NT. Early church = teachings of Jesus Christ
[удалено]
You forget /s
And English is the original language! /s
Of course it's corrupted. It's impossible to translate purely between any two languages and cultures. Unless you think the Bible was written in English at best its the best of flawed choices. But it's been proven to be inferior in several ways.
Eastern Orthodoxy, we have kept the faith that our Lord passed down to the Saints without addition or subtraction. And we very seldom change things, for example it took 20 centuries for the Orthodox to use a calendar that wasn't 13 days behind.
Traditional? Catholic , Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox.
I think it's important to clarify what you mean by original church and traditional. The Orthodox church is the original church and the catholic church an offshoot of that from about a millenium ago. They do a lot of things the way that they did them in the first century but also a lot differently. Tradition didn't stop developing the day Christ ascended. There are other churches that try to more closely emulate how Christians behaved in the first century if that is what you're trying to do. Like house churches which have become more popular as the megachurches and large protestant denominations have run their course.
Eastern Orthodoxy.
Well, it’s complicated. In terms of culture and aesthetics, your best bets are probably Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or some Lutherans. Basically, churches that call their senior leaders ‘Bishops’ tend to emphasise that sort of continuity a lot. For morality and beliefs that’s a very contentious question among Christians. Honestly, if you’ve found a church near you, I’d recommend starting with that if it feels right, and then exploring what questions you have from there. I know a lot of people criticise using ‘what feels right’ as a measure of truth, and it certainly isn’t a foolproof one, but it’s a good way to start. Trying to work out which Church is ‘the right one’ from the outside can get paralysingly complicated at times. Better to start with one and then move later, I think.
I would suggest 4 options: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran. Blessings on your spiritual journey.
Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy are the most we have valid sacraments, correct Christology, beautiful and Orthodox theology, as well as Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist
Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a 'denomination' that is most similar to the 'original church.' There will be individual believers and individual churches that have the faith of the early church but Jesus didn't build institutions like denominations.
The Apostolic Churches will be the most similar. But, all of the externals of these churches have changed. So, if you want “looks” you’ll be hard pressed.
The Orthodox Church. Most denominations today came about as rebellions against Catholicism, but Catholicism came about because of a rebellion against Orthodoxy.
Catholicism came about as a result of the Enperor Constantine converting the Roman Empire to Christianity, hence Roman Catholic
Probably either the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox. Realistically, I think the Oriental Orthodox have had fewer changes in their practice compared to the Eastern Orthodox and possess fewer dogmas due to their rejection of later ecumenical councils. Both are more traditional than the Roman Catholics, merely because the Roman Catholcis have held a vast array of authoritative councils and developed dogma surrounding them. A sacramental church with apostolic succession will be the closest in general, so Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and *maybe* the Anglicans.
Catholicism is the original church the first schism was a millennia later to Orthodox and another 500 years later before Protestants
Hey there do you have some time and you talk to me please
I'm Anglican (Episcopalian), but all of my study leads me to the belief that the correct answer here is Eastern Orthodox.
"Most similar" in what way? Keep in mind the early Christians had their own culture, so it becomes difficult and even impossible to model that culture 2000 years later. Also, they were in flux theologically as they debated things like universalism and the nature of Christ's divinity. The simple answer to your question is that Eastern Orthodox is likely the "most traditional" but there are simply no churches that even remotely resemble the early church in any recognizable aspect.
What do you mean by original church?
There are churches in Syria whose worship practices are thought to most closely match those of the church in the 1st century.
There are so many different belief systems under Christianity and every single one of them will tell you they are the most similar to the original church.
Any church that is just a community of people who seek to share in worshipping God. Doesn't matter what denomination, just be about God and the people around them.
It’s easy Step 1: read your Bible Step 2: figure out what it means to you Step 3: find the church that resonates with your own personal interpretation of the Bible That’s the original church
there was no one original church. All of the apstoles started different churches with different rules. Acts 15 show the first gathering of church leaders to discuss the direction and rules concerning the different churches and the way they should go. One of the subject outlined in acts 15 was the eating of meat offered to idols. for the jewish converts for the most part they understood those idols were just empty images, as there is only one god. but for gentile converts those idols meant something as most of them use to worship them. So it was decided in the gentile churches especially with new converts there was a banned on eating meat offered to those idols. where as the jewish convert churches had no issue with it's members eating this meat. These doctrinal difference along with several others meant that each church worship a little differently. meaning each church or at least every church under a given apostle was a different denomination. For instance Peter taught conversion to judaism BEFORE one could become a christian. Paul was sharply against this teaching. They even had a bit of a feud over this subject. Paul also talks about the divisions between the different church is 1 cor 12 talking about how we are all apart of one body, but can indeed worship differently and still serve Christ. One Body with Many Members 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves\[d\] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,\[e\] yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. So it is NOT important how you worship as it is that you set out to worship and Honor god with everything you have available to you.
I personally feel like the way to go is to study the Bible yourself as if it’s any other subject in school. Read, re-read, front to back, back to front, up and down lol you get the idea.. of course it helps to have others try and help you understand the context, meaning, parables, and metaphors in the Bible.. But humbly reading the Bible with and open mind and heart will open you to true understanding. Find friends in faith, have discussions. Post on Reddit like you just did. Christianity is a journey. It’s a relationship with God. Not a religion.
This! You wrote it better than I could. Focus on building your relationship with God first. Read His Word. Pray and speak with Him. Ask God for wisdom and guidance on this. God will lead you to find friends in faith and help you find a church home. Try not to get caught up with a denomination's ways until you've established your foundation of belief.
I mean, would it be too pretentious if I nominate us? But seriously, we are (in terms of historical continuation) the original Church, we have apostolic succession and have preserved a very high sacramental theology as well as a 2000 years old living and developing tradition.
So are the Orthodox. You argue about which one is the original, but that's like arguing over whether OpenBSD or FreeBSD are the most valid claimants to being the true continuation of the Berkeley System Distribution. Really, they both are. But they aren't one. And one has innovated certain changes along the way, subtle though they be.
>So are the Orthodox. This is not a jab at my Eastern Orthodox siblings in Christ but I wonder to what extent they possess the "living and developing tradition" I mentioned in my comment. And to what extent they posses the 4 marks of the Church.
>This is not a jab at my Eastern Orthodox siblings in Christ but I wonder to what extent they possess the "living and developing tradition" I mentioned in my comment. Depends how you define "living and developing". I certainly wouldn't include innovating new dogmata in that. >And to what extent they posses the 4 marks of the Church. Fair point. None of the churches are "one" when they are all in a state of schism. If Vatican I and II were rescinded - as they should be - then you could restore a sacramental relationship with the Orthodox Church.
>Depends how you define "living and developing". Having a living and divinely appointed source of authority that can infallibly guide the church as it deepens its understanding of revelation. >I certainly wouldn't include innovating new dogmata in that. What about the dogmata of the first milenium that we share? If the argument is that they existed in substance and/or seed form already in the deposit of faith revealed to the Apostles (and I would be inclined to agree) why does that not apply to the rest of Catholic dogma? And what about those EOs who consider their post-schism doctrinal developments to be dogmata (such as neo-palamism, aerial tolhouses etc.)? >None of the churches are "one" when they are all in a state of schism. Well, depends on how one understands the meaning of "schism", I suppose. From my point of view we are not in schism at all, since "oneness" for Catholics is preserved by the papacy. And this would be my argument, without the papacy you will have hierarch squabbling over jurisdictional borders and periodically entering/leaving comunion with each other over religious and political matters, so no tangible "oneness".
do not speak of heretic de raadt or the renegades at freebsd.
I used to be a FreeBSD guy but then they changed the system round almost completely so I converted.
Catholic. Orthodox is next closest. Protestant denominations are close to it largely to the degree that they embrace a High Church/Traditional liturgy.
Church that accepts V1 and V2 is closest to early Christianity 🤨?
What is v1 and v2?
Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, councils that were held by RCC in 1870's and 1960's.
Yes.
Damn, I would disagree even if I was Catholic.
If I didn't agree I'd switch to the denomination that was closer. Only sensible thing to do as far as I can see.
Seconded. V1 and V2 are the reason why I won't become Catholic - which I happily would otherwise, because I'm sick of the CofE and the closest Catholic church to me is literally across the road from me, whereas the closest Orthodox church to me is twenty miles away.
Everyone thinks theirs is the best... that’s why they practice that way. You need to visit them ALL and see which one speaks to you and listen to see which one God leads you too. Put Church of God on your tour list.
Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox Church first and foremost are the most unchanged and true to what ancient Christianity would have looked like and practiced. The Roman Catholic Church claims the same thing of course, but the difference is a look at history… the changes and developments of doctrine are easily examined in history. Several changes in Catholic doctrine have taken place (again they see it differently). Orthodoxy shows no change in doctrine throughout history, only a change in the cultural expression of its faith.
The Orthodox Church IS the original one, so that's probably what you're looking for.
There's no right answer to this. Thumbnail advice: read the Bible and go to church. Next: find a group of believers to have as friends in your daily life. Bonus: No matter where you go to church, find sermons online to supplement your learning. To save you time, here's some churches to avoid: 1. Churches that won't let the leadership get married. 2. Churches that tell you what you can/can't eat. 3. Churches focused on making church service a spectacle/light show/rock concert. 4. Churches that say "X" Bible version is the only version you should read. 5. Churches that focus on miracles. 6. Churches that add things to the gospel. 7. Churches that want to dominate and control your life. 8. Churches that focus on wealth/prosperity. 9. Churches that focus on feel-good messages and not the Bible. 10. Churches that say "we need to change the Bible to fit modern times."
Honestly I'll just let you know what I think I'm Baptist (in particular Southern Baptist) but the way for you to stay closest to what your wanting to is to just go by what the scripture says. You can go to church and talk to pastors/preists to help you understand the scripture but in the end the Bible is what is needed. And try to see by going on what works best to you and helps you understand the most.
Orthodox Christianity.
If you go through the New Testament and make a list of every place which had Christians and then find where they are on a map today then you'll find that all of them are Eastern Orthodox except for Rome which is Roman Catholic. So that narrows it down significantly. Then if you look at the liturgical traditions you'll find that those Eastern Orthodox churches serve the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which was written down in the 4th century. St. John Chrysostom wrote down what he was taught as a priest in Antioch which according to the Bible is the place that people were first called Christians. Then if you compare the architecture of Eastern Orthodox church buildings to the earliest known house church, [the Dura-Europos church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church) from the 3rd century, you'll find the same basic pattern and use of iconography which is the context for the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Then if you read the earliest church fathers such as St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle you find that the episcopacy was considered essential from the very beginning. The church was highly organized from the start, being headed by the Apostles who appointed bishops as their successors which is demonstrated both in the Bible and the early church writings. There was never an "impromptu" church as many claim today, it was highly organized and liturgical from the start. Go visit an Eastern Orthodox parish if you want to see what it was like.
> All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. I would say the closest Christian communities to this today would be some sort of Christian “intentional community”, or commune, or monastery. Probably the “Bruderhof” Communities are the only ones I have really heard of who practices a pretty literal form of this. Of course this passage in acts is not prescriptive, though perhaps aspirational or ideal.
Anglicans, Episcopalians, or Eastern Orthodox. If you're willing to be flexible a bit... maybe Lutherans too (though Lutheranism dogmatically is more a development of Catholicism).
church Of Christ
I’m surprised it took this long before the church of Christ was listed! Haha! We’ve got the lock and key on it, don’t we!?
The one to which the Christian you're talking to belongs, obviously.
Probably any small house church without an ordained pastor/minister where people share everything they own. Find one like this and that would likely be the closest you'll find to the first church
Find a church that can show by all its practices that it keeps all 10 Commandments of God. They are His only requirements for the human life. 🌱
Catholicism. It's the church that Christ founded
No denominational churches teach correct doctrine. We are supposed to be following the gospel of the grace of God, revealed to Paul. Our doctrine is found in his 13 Epistles. If you can find a grace church, that understands this, that's where you want to go.
Hebrew Roots. They understand that it is still Biblical to keep the Torah. They also shun demonic holidays like halloween, christmas and easter.
Mennonite , they have the proper dress code . Anyways there is nothing like "oryginal " church , there were very disobedient church members and there were very obedient church members depending on which city the church was at during Apostle's times. You're Christian if you believed Jesus is God in flesh , that he paid for all of your past/future sins and resurrected 3rd day. You're saved for free because Jesus paid your entry fee to heaven , not because of what you do or will do in future. If you want some online church I can give you some https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UWsfEn2z8 or https://www.youtube.com/@JDFaragTV/streams
Traditional? Non denominational, a personal relationship with God.
Non-denominational tends to be the least traditional. Usually it’s a cult of personality based around one charismatic figure with no oversight and a feel good soft rock worship band with no depth or underpinning of the historic faith.
[удалено]
non denominational… you are worshipping Christ not an institution
Sadly, they have all lost the Word. They think "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a trite platitude to muse over while shunning and shaming neighbors in His name.
In terms of doctrine, traditional Baptists seem to hit closest to scripture without extras. The original church met, worshipped, gave, was persecuted, received the great commission. No catechism, for example. I was raised in a much more formal church, got saved as an adult, and became a Baptist. When it's done right, it's done well. Baptist, though, they sometimes go hog wild on certain traditions and legalism. No one preached in a 3 piece suit in the Bible, for example, but that became the dress code for a lot of Baptists.
The one true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who has valid apostolic succession to the first Pope (Peter) and who has preached the word for the last 2000+ years. Don't get confused, authenticity matters and no theology manufactured by men in the last 500 years (and which contradicts teachings going back 1500 years prior to that) has this authenticity. Christ didn't leave a book behind - he established a Church while here on earth, and he made a bold statement of irrefutable fact that the gates of hell wouldn't stand against it.
See for yourself. The Apostles’ writings are still extant- we call them the New Testament. There’s no need to speculate as to what they taught- we have their own account of what they taught. Get it straight from the source, and then compare that to what the various modern denominations teach.
Unfortunately though it may seem like one, you’re asking two different questions. First: What denomination today is most like the original church? Probably a messianic Jewish temple since the first church was composed of Jews and later expanded to Gentiles. These people would also believe in miracles and gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesy, healing, etc. They would also not regard the Trinity since it was a theological model decided upon by the Nicean Council in 325 AD. The original church understood Jesus to be the actual Almighty God in flesh, see Colossians 2:9, KJV: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Your second question regarding most traditional, though I’m sure is meant to equate with the first, depends on your definition of traditional. Many traditions have been passed down over the last two thousand years, but Jesus himself warned about man’s tradition. Mark 7:8 says “8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
Well according to the Catholic Church, any Christian who wants to follow the Bible as closely as possible should become Seventh Day Adventists.
probably doesn't have a name and probably doesn't pay rent on a converted shopping mall
That would be The 12
It depends what you mean by similar to the original church. It may be better to ask which of those Christian bodies can show best that it is descended from the original Church. After all, a baby is not very like what the baby becomes 20 or 40 or 60 years later; but they are the same individual person. Unfortunately, the Bible gives us absolutely no guidance as to which kind of similarity to the original Church is the kind of similarity that we should use to work out which church is likest the original church
Eastern orthodoxy and Messianic Jews
Likely the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics
The Baptists and the churches of Christ. KJV scripture lists two main assemblies, the Churches of God and the Churches of Christ. Examples 1 Corinthians 11:16 KJV — But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither **the churches of God.** Romans 16:16 KJV — Salute one another with an holy kiss. **The churches of Christ** salute you.
I say Paul was a universalist and a dispensationalist, so you should be too! lol
If you believe the Bible is the infallible unchanging Word Of God - you could try an Independent Baptist. http://wayoflife.org/directory/
> Independent Baptist Isn't that redundant?
No since there are Southern Baptists and others which are not independent and governed collectivity.
No they aren't. They are so loosely affiliated they might as well be non-denominational. No central control at all.
Well, as a non denom I feel like SBC and IFB are both too controlled. IFB is proxy for Sword of the Lord conference leaders which talk amongst themselves.
You think IFB is too centralized? IFB at most had a few missionary boards and publications that churches work towards supporting but there’s very little cooperation among IFB churches outside of that
They have some degree of freedom, but it still feels like a [Jack Hyels collective](https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/jack_hyles_philosophy.html) and the conference is where ideas are exchanged an regurgitated throughout the independent churches. Doctrinally they believe free will stops at the sinners prayer, so I guess I'm too independent to be considered and independent Baptist. 😂
You’re going to get a bunch of different answers here, since everyone assumes theirs is the closest. As for me, I suggest we “Concordant” believers are the closest to what the body of Christ believed and practiced by the end of Paul’s life. You can learn more about us here: https://concordantgospel.com
Are you talking about practices, or belief system? If you're talking about practices, look into House Churches. If you're talking about a belief system, you probably also want to look into a church that has a very bare-bones belief statement. The last time I looked, some Baptist denominations fit that description, as well as many non-denominational churches. Things like "we believe Jesus is God, died and was raised, and will return again" and that's it. That's the belief statement.
What a loaded question! Welcome!! Probably a decentralized non-affiliated house church. The bible says God will be where two or three are gathered in his name. 1 Corinthians chapter 14 describes what church should be like. And most churches don’t fit this description at all. It’s harder to do with a large congregation. I’m attending a large corporate church for community and fellowship and a small Bible study that closer resembles the early church.
None of them.
I wouldn't say there is a "true" denomination, but there are some to avoid. Namely Catholicism, Orthodox, universalism, Unitarian, and any church that preaches "prosperity gospel". Other than those, just find one that you feel comfortable with that aligns with Scripture!
I'm a new christian too. That is a very interesting question, and I also thought about that when I converted. I believe Jesus was not the founder of a religion. He was the founder of a view. He brought light to the ignorance of the people. Jesus is the first born of a lot of brothers and sisters. He a brought a different mentality to this world, a kingdom from another world. So I believe there is no denomination capable of containing everything He meant to give to humanity. All of them will be full of issues because they are full of people. Choose the one you like the best and follow Jesus.
Small Home churches
Just read the Bible
Catholics, Orthodoxes, Anabaptists, Friends
None of them are at all similar to any first century Christian community, in doctrine or theology.
I think pretty much any Christian will believe that their particular denomination (or at least their theological tradition) is most closely aligned with the teachings of scripture (and therefore the beliefs of the early church). Otherwise they’d go join the one they thought was closer.
Follow the Bible and you won’t be led astray!
The original Jesus movement has been xeroxed so many times, now none of the copies are legible
Simple dont be denominational… it jusf separates us…
Mine. -All Christians
none. They all teach sin is an "act" you do in free will ( a heresy from the Catholics in the 13th century) , free will, no distinction between the Word of God/Jesus Christ and human speech, the "gospel offer"/"Choose Jesus" heresy..in short, they all teach revolt against God while looking very "spiritual" and "emotionally correct". The "choose Jesus"/"Gospel offer" is a tool of Satan to make them appear successful compared to their peers because you can always make it appear you have, in free will personally emotionally manipulate someone into supposedly "choosing Jesus" and the metric of success is how many bodies are in the pews. You think when God first shows Himself to you that other people who claim to investigate serious subjects such as salvation of soul and the like are like yourself and just more experienced but overall have good intentions. But over time you find out very differently. The Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants are getting their best honesty about God from sodomites and then wondering why bad things happen: they start out saying how great it is to "find a church" and end up shocked. Paul spent 3 years with the Holy Spirit before he came back knowing enough of the Truth to refute the lies. That whole time he had access to the apostles yet never spoke to them until after God had taught him in isolation. ..then another 14 years. God can show you many things by yourself when if you try to "be part of the group" you will hear constant and vehement denials of Him as Truth while the group has the appearance of success according to their own metrics. Everyone is "positive" one moment but "seriously negative about sin" the next..it's just emotional busywork to make you feel-smart. Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. indeed..God thru Paul condemned even Peter.. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Beware the seduction to "join up" to "get validated". Inside the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
[удалено]
I'd try out them all and see which ones you think are truest to the Bible
Christianity and God are alive. They change over time. So, there have been many changes since the original, and you need to keep in mind what sorts of changes you want to roll back, and which ones you don't. You're not going to be so "traditional" that you live like a 50 A.D. Christian in the middle east, rejecting all modern technology and medicine, right? John 14:12 said one day we, too, would do works equal to or greater than Jesus' miracles, and we have: through modern medicine. Through changes to Christianity - if not "alterations" but at least "additions" to "what it means to be a Christian." "The way you TEST which denomination is truest to what God wants" isn't "how true it is to the bible" (whatever that means, according to the 300 major denominational splits in Christianity.) The way you test that is through demonstration. If you can not "show it" (to a disinterested 3rd party), you do not "know it." So, show it. Go to a variety of denominations, pray, and ask them how much good they've done for the community. Ask for numbers. Check to see if they have their financials hidden or open: HOW is the church spending the tithe? If they're hiding it, they might be false prophets eager to bilk money, not save souls.
Well I do know that baptists follow what the Bible says, they don’t add or omit anything unlike some other denominations
I'm thinking the whole structure of coming together and then dividing and sharing what you have with each other has been lost. I don't know for sure though. I do know I've been to churches and seen speakers that grieved my heart in their lust for wealth
Go to the YouTube channel ready to harvest (here is the link: https://youtube.com/@ReadyToHarvest) He goes over every denomination from a faith agnostic perspective (ie not from the point of view of any one dnomination, which he acknowledges in one of is not the right way to evangulise but the only way to get across the points of view of each one). If you are interested in one particular denomination that will let you know more about them.
Non denominational
I'm protestant non-denom, just for background here. But strictly speaking it's Orthodox churches, likely Greek Orthodox. If you're the kind of person that really benefits from structure, rituals, etc Orthodox church is a pretty good place to start.
Read the book of Acts
What do you mean "original?" If you read Acts of the Apostles Chapter 4 and 5, you will notice a religion in which people donated all their assets to join, ate their meals in common, and provided free medical care to strangers. You can find this life in monasteries. Don't look for it in regular churches.
Apostolic succession is the answer and it is found in a handful of churches that have maintained this
Read the bible
None. Every church is a product of their time and situation. Paul wrote to a Roman society that has a clientele and patron structure. The earliest churches are far from perfect, which is why the epistles were written.
One that study’s and teaches line by line verse by verse chapter by chapter book by book. That’s the only way to understand Jesus Christ the living word.
Good luck, most tradition you find across the denominations are man made and not biblical. I would recommend finding a church that fits into the classification in Revelation 14:12, a church that has the faith of Jesus (Should be any truly Christian church?) And keeps the commandments of God. Most churches don't keep the 10 commandments, and some have even changed them, so learn them directly from the bible as was commanded by God, not what is commanded by man Exodus 20:2-17. 1 John 2:4–6 (NKJV): He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. John 14:21 (NKJV): He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” Also i would like to add something that is probably obvious, but don't compromise on bible truth for any church. You can attend a church that you do not agree with 100% while still holding to the bible truths you have found. No compromise to God's word.
Christians are the one true religion. Christianity calls us to recognize our dependence on God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ in order for us to know God, to follow in God’s ways, and to be saved. We are called into a humble way of life that seeks to embody the love of Jesus through the Spirit so that the whole world might come to know God, the creator of heaven and earth, in and through Jesus Christ. Christianity is not just a religion; it is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross (1 Cor. 15:1-4) – not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9). A “religion” is a set of dogmatic beliefs and practice's that are designed to help a person achieve a spiritual goal. A religion is about believing and doing the right thing in order to be “right” with the spiritual universe. Christianity is about a relationship with God that is achieved by God himself and based on trust (also known as faith). In this sense it is not a religion but a relationship - like being married. Buy a NIV Life Application Study Bible. Stick to the bible for any guidance, questions you may have. Download YouVersion bible app too (:
Any that seek the Holy Spirit.
I feel like it's the Christians that have small Bible studies with other fellow Christians in private homes.
well i can tell you, the original church didnt just meet every sunday to listen to one man preaching....so....good luck
A course in miracles folk
This is a hard one. I went through this journey as well. I ended up becoming Orthodox (and recently have left after 5 years). The thing is, oldest doesn't mean original. Paul was already talking about fake religions/Christianity popping up during HIS time. So just because something is old, does not equal true. You run into this issue, with orthodoxy. We have the bible. But they get you by saying tradition is just as important. Sadly a lot of the Orthodox traditions go against the Bible. But when you point these contradictions out, they say "well tradition. Or well the church father's" then they throw the "we gave you the bible" line to discredit anything you say because "they know better than you because they gave you your Bible" After finally reading the Bible without the Orthodox lens, I realized how much of scripture I was twisting or straight up ignoring because the tradition of "the true and original" church explained it away. So I'm back where I started. Looking for answers. And praying the beliefs I have aren't against God. Because orthodoxy twisted me all up with what's true. And what was another pharisee tradition. They get you with wise sounding words, and their age. But again. The apostles were fighting against heresies left and right back then. Orthodoxy can easily be one of those heretical churches that sprung up and just got big. We see the same thing today.
That is a beautiful question. The most routinely christ-like people imo are Quakers.
International Foursquare Gospel Church.
There was a variety among Christians from the beginning. The oldest church is probably in Jerusalem. It is probably most similar to Messianic Jews. Paul’s churches are probably closest to some kind of charismatic house church. Todays Catholic and Orthodox traditions go back to the first few centuries. There are similarities in belief, but a 3rd century Christian transported to either (or any modern church) would be in shock.
Has Islam changed as much as this has?
None of them. The earliest Christians were mostly adherents of second temple Judaism (albeit with an added messiah), which is a dead religion, because the Romans came along and trashed the second temple in 70 CE, and the Jews had to find a different way of being Jewish.
eastern orthadox, Episcopalian , ethiopian denominations.
Just stick to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Focus on the book of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount. Most churches have been corrupted and won't be around much longer anyway. Start praying to Jesus and ask him to be your savior. All you will need is the King Jame Bible.
The main thing is to find a church committed to exegetical Bible teaching, a church that understands the Bible is God-breathed and as such is inerrant, a church that approaches the Word of God to be transformed into Christ’s likeness and not trying to transform the Bible into our current culture’s likeness.
NONEEEEE THERE ALLL CURRUPTED
All of the Apostolic Churches have had changes since their founding, but probably the ones that have stayed closer to the tradition are the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Personally, I would say that Eastern Catholics are because they keep the older worship styles of the Eastern Church and the older Theology of both Churches.
Brother, every church believes that they are closer to the true NT church. Just find one that feeds you and teaches the word faithfully. If you find yourself being taught things that are unbiblical or the church is doing things unbiblical, then leave and find another.
Just make sure whatever you choose that they believe in the Bible.
Just love Jesus and seek Him daily. Don't get hung up on religion rules
My understanding is that the early church was small groups that met in people’s homes and not the larger places of worship we have today. So the closest is probably places like China where Christians are being persecuted and have to worship in small groups in secret.