Primitive Christianity

Ignoring the phenomenon of denominations and movements ostensibly after the age of the Apostles and the New Testament, what are the hallmarks of a decent-to-good, run-of-the-mill New Testament style congregation of the sort perhaps most prevalent among orthodox streams of the church between approximately the mid-1st century through the very early second century AD? What is a congregation required to include? Generally, what did they typically include during their meetings, and, conversely, what is notable for being excluded, despite latter developments seeming to insist themselves upon the numerous denominations of the world, since after the Apostles? What are aspects of the very early, primitive state of the church that would surprise or even utterly mystify modern observers of such a meeting held as they would have during such ancient times for the faith? In your opinion, are post-biblical innovations to be considered valid or invalid towards influencing the general conduct of the Christian life, even dogmatically imposed as though written in the original, inspired scriptures? How do proponents of sacred traditions handle justifying their perspectives when their traditions very often post-date the 1st century, historically and archaeologically? What is the basis for relying upon councils of fallible men after the Apostles lived and died? Do most Christians really believe the Ecumenical Councils are somewhere at or very near divinely-inspired, or just that they happen to line up with good scriptural interpretations?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were the same as Jehovah's Witnesses

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not convincing. Explain more to substantiate your claim.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        not him, but everything about Jehovah Witnesses with their weird beliefs and autistic behavior matches early christians in every way. The only thing that doesnt match is Jesus is Michael the Archangel shit.

      • 9 months ago
        JWanon

        We have the same beliefs and practices

        not him, but everything about Jehovah Witnesses with their weird beliefs and autistic behavior matches early christians in every way. The only thing that doesnt match is Jesus is Michael the Archangel shit.

        Why wouldn't Jesus be the Archangel ?

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why wouldn't Jesus be the Archangel ?
          its not a matter of whether he is or isnt, its just that there was not a single Christian before 100 AD that said
          >Jesus is Michael the Archangel
          You posted a link before saying some Church fathers did, but ive yet to see the qoutes from these Church fathers.

          • 9 months ago
            JWanon

            Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

            Jesus has “an archangel’s voice” because he is the archangel, Michael.

            Ancient Christians believed seven old boomers in upstate New York are anointed by God to become immortal arbiters of justice alongside Jesus Christ

            Early christianity was centralized, with a governing body of elders in Jerusalem that directed and organized the worldwide brotherhood

            I don't see the problem

  2. 9 months ago
    Chud Anon

    Ancient Christians believed seven old boomers in upstate New York are anointed by God to become immortal arbiters of justice alongside Jesus Christ

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Early christians definitely had elders who oversaw churches for a specific regions. The idea that every christian is an elder is a protestant invention.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        The priesthood of all Christians means that we are akin to the Old Testament priests in status. However, we have the new elder/bishop and deacon leadership model. In truth, most denominations don't do a good job at representing that, coming with so many superfluous ranks and titles, such as Senior Pastor, Executive Pastor, Worship Pastor, Administrative Pastor, and so on, and that is not to mention the many applications towards the Deacon titles. In reality, there shouldn't be one single teaching pastor, but a rotation between two, three, or more elders, and perhaps more deacons exist to provide them support, such as fulfilling administrative duties, instead of some newfangled Administrative Pastor.

        • 9 months ago
          JWanon

          >most denominations don't do a good job

          Correct. People have used the teachings of Jesus Christ to form a variety of “Christian” denominations. However, the Bible indicates that there is only one true form of Christianity

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Just because they didn't explicitly say it doesn't mean they didn't believe it though
    Ill accept this argument, if you can find 2 examples just like this occurring with Jehovah Witness and Early Christianity.

    Also, on a side note: why do you discourage members from growing beards even though JW's always depict Jesus with a beard?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >if you can find 2 examples just like this occurring with Jehovah Witness and Early Christianity.

      I don't understand your question

      >why do you discourage members from growing beards even though JW's always depict Jesus with a beard?

      It's not though ?

      Here's an instagram account with hundreds of JWs with beards:

      https://www.instagram.com/jw.barbas/?hl=fr

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't understand your question
        There is 0 records of a Christian saying Jesus is Michael the Archangel before a 100 AD. You say this doesnt matter because they really did believe he was Michael the Archangel, but they didnt write it down. What are 2 other examples of a belief Early Christians had that they never wrote down? I guess one other example is Birthday parties being pagan, but i dont know if Birthday parties were a thing during Jesus time.

        >It's not though ?
        i dont know if you are aware, but if you search on Youtube "Jehovah Witnesses cant have beards" youll get many results. Heres one video

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >but i dont know if Birthday parties were a thing during Jesus time.

          >Birthdays were first considered to be a pagan ritual in Christian culture.
          >In Christianity, it is believed that all people are born with “original sin.” That, in combination with early birthdays being tied to pagan gods, led Christians to consider birthdays to be celebrations of evil. This lasted for the first few hundred years of the existence of the Christian Church.
          https://www.pumpitupparty.com/blog/how-did-the-tradition-of-birthdays-begin/

          >i dont know if you are aware, but if you search on Youtube "Jehovah Witnesses cant have beards" youll get many results

          I have clearly demonstrated with the instagram account I have posted that this is not true.

          You shouldn't be so naive and believe everything you read and watch on the internet.

          Jehovah gives this advice:
          "The simple man believes every word, but the prudent give thought to their steps." (Proverbs 14:15)

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"The simple man believes every word, but the prudent give thought to their steps." (Proverbs 14:15)
            Do you give thought to your steps when read from the official Jehovah Witness website?

          • 9 months ago
            JWanon

            Of course. The Bible not only encourages readers to examine their own beliefs (1 John 4:1), but it also commends those who check spiritual claims for truth (Acts 17:11).

            I think that Michael being Jesus makes sense. However, Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is not affected in the slightest if Michael is not Christ.

            Therefore, it is no problem if our logical conclusions regarding Michael are proved wrong when those new scrolls are opened! (John 17:3; 1 John 4:15; Romans 10:9)

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it is no problem if our logical conclusions regarding Michael are proved wrong
            for the record, i do think its plausible Jesus is Michael the Archangel. I just think its important to prove Early Christians had this belief when you say you are *ahem* just like the Early Christians.

          • 9 months ago
            JWanon

            Officially, we consider it likely but it is not presented as a definitive fact

            >"Consider why it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the archangel Michael"
            https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/archangel-michael/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *