Which Christianity is closest to the early Christianity? Orthodox, non-denomination, Catholic, Coptic, Lutheran, Calvinist? which one?
>>361378
>early Christianity
This obviously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian
>>361378
Jesus
VALIS
>>361378
Catholicism
>>361400
Doesn't Rabbinic Judaism postdate Christianity?
>>361436
>Orthodox probably, or a bit closer would be the coptic church
So how does the Coptic Church differ from the Orthodox Church?
>>361378
Gnostic
St. Paul was an initiate
>>361452
Don't Gnostics completely reject the OT, though?
>>361456
they claimed Jesus did the same
>>361474
Then how could he possibly be the Christ (Greek for Messiah) prophesied n the OT? And if you don't think he's the Christ, then why would you call yourself a Christian?
>>361523
you need to read the gnostic myths to get it, which is a clusterfuck because there were many different groups.
But gnostics saw Christ as one of their own, an essene
>>361551
You mean Jesus. Surely they wouldn't call him "Christ" unless they were complete idiots.
>>361558
yes you´re right
basically they said that you can get Christhood through knowledge (gnosis). For the first 2 centuries after Jesus they competed with the mainstream church on equal terms
>>361378
Islam is
Of the official branches: The only real choices are Orthodoxy, Coptic, and Catholism.
Sustititonal atonement, which is distinctly protestant was never a belief until Luther. Same with the baptism and Eucharist being 'only symbolic' same with the idea that the priest positions do not have some official power.
Coptic and Orthodox are 99% the same thing so for the sake of arguement I'll just call them Orthodox since Coptics are a very small number.
Catholicism is obviously different from the original because they keep adding radical new doctrine. For instance Augustine's emphasis on original sin was a new idea. There are also a lot of smaller things like how they recently changed how the mass ritual. Catholics love to make new doctrine while the Orthodox are extremely hesitant so they are much closer to the original.
Now to address the non official branches: Jewish Christianity is obviously one, we know for instance that the 12 apostles disagreed with how many Jewish customes should be preserved. James I believe went as far as to advocate that Christians must obey the Talmad, become circumsized, and avoid eating pork.
As for the Gnostic, it's a very early type of Christianity at least 2nd century but there are many branches that can have very different ideas. There were Gnostic before Jesus was even born and it's unclear when they decided that Jesus was an important figure in their religion I highly doubt it's what Jesus taught but than again I don't think any of the branches are the original teachings. 1st century Christianity is almost impossible to exactly pindown since there are pretty much no physical documents from the period. It seems like there were multiple versions of the religion even back than.
>>361378
Jehovah's Witnesses.
Not even kidding.
>>361436
> Orthodox probably
The early church was with mixed Gentile Jewish groups early on, I'm sure each little ethnic Orthodox church is pretty far deviated from the original type.
>>361621
By Coptic do you mean only the Copts or Oriental Orthodox as a whole?
>>361656
Oriental Orthodox is the same as the Coptic Church, it's like Greek Orthodox compared to Eastern Orthodox.
>>361646
Then how are they so similar to Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox?
>>361935
>Oriental Orthodox is the same as the Coptic Church
not really
>>361954
The Coptic Church is an Oriental Orthodox Church.
>>361378
Closest tier: Orthodox, Coptic
Moderately close tier: Catholic(Moving further with Francisco though)
Completely different tier: Non-denom, Lutheran, Calvinist(Protestants basically)
>>362220
Yes, it's one of the Oriental Orthodox churches. That doesn't man that Coptic = Oriental Orthodox though.
>>361378
Assyrian Church of the East, one of the oldest surviving churches.
>>361378
Definitely not Catholic, I'll tell you that.
>>362259
They're working becoming part of the Orthodox Church, and were very close to it before the Turks genocided them.
>>362233
Why are protestants not as close as Catholics? Half the reason the reformation happened was because people were getting sick of the Catholics tacking on new practices.
>>361434
It depends on where you consider the beginnings of "Rabbinic" Judaism to be.
At what point do you consider "Pharisee" Judaism to end and "Rabbinic" Judaism to begin? They're pretty similar theologically and in practice.
>>361621
>James I believe went as far as to advocate that Christians must obey the Talmad,
Just one minor, pedantic point: The Talmud didn't exist by the time that Jesus and disciples were around, at least not in its modern written form. The Talmud is a collection of a bunch of teachings and arguments of various Rabbis, some of whom predate the Apostolic period, some of whom lived afterwards.
It wouldn't have really been "follow the Talmud" (which is kind of meaningless, since half of it violently disagrees with the other half) but they probably did have a bunch of "mainstream" Jewish rabbis that they thought were good authority for ritual and practice and belief. Overall, Jesus's teachings have some similarities with Hillel's, they'd probably have thought highly of that strain of thought.
>>362321
Rabbinic Judaism started not earlier than the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, since that is what lead to rabbis rather than priests being considered the highest spiritual authority.
>>362318
Catholics add, but Protestants abridge
>>362357
>Rabbinic Judaism started not earlier than the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, since that is what lead to rabbis rather than priests being considered the highest spiritual authority.
Except no, that's not true. The Rabbis stripped the High Priest of, for instance, the leadership of the Sanhedrin as far back as 191 B.C., and you have older splits going back into the structure of the Bible itself, granted with prophets rather than the notion of an institution of a rabbinate.
There's a reason that the Pharisee party was WAY bigger than the Sadducees. Most Jews of the period regarded priests as temple caretakers, not someone who was enlightened or even necessarily educated.
Especially since the Selucids, and later the Romans, would appoint high priests based on things like bribery or someone they thought they could work with, did a lot to damage the credibility of the priesthood institution.
>>362318
The Reformation brought about a further deviation from what Early Christianity is compared to Catholicism
>>362426
As Paul pointed out from OT scriptures, Abraham was found to be righteous 430 yrs. before the Law was given. Therefore, one is not found to be righteous by the Law of Moses but by faith.
>>362434
That Doesn't even prove sola Fide. The faith of Abraham is of his own free will which he actualized in action. The "Law" in that context refers to the Mosaic Law and not the act of doing good works in general.
>>362398
There's a lot debate that could go on here, and there were certainly prerogatives of authority priests had that rabbis didn't have, but regardless, when the very nucleus of Judaism was destroyed, and the institution that cleansed people of sins, it changed things a lot, and the more that was put into the Talmud Canon, the more it changed. Today, belief in God is largely rejected as important or even required except in Orthodox Judaism.
>>362434
You seem to think that "works" exclusively means "works in Mosaic", even though these are not the same thing in the NT.
>>362462
*Mosaic law
>>362445
The very fact that Jesus said again and again "It is written" establishes that Scripture was and is the final authority is all matters of doctrine and practice.
Mennonites.
>>362466
Nope. His own teachings and parables would by definition be oral tradition. In fact....the entire NT is simply that tradition written down which makes your point here stupid as fuck
>>362456
>Today, belief in God is largely rejected as important or even required except in Orthodox Judaism
So the most important thing is the community?
>>362466
None of the NT was written when Jesus was saying that, so....
>>362494
Practicing the Talmud.
>>362536
Do you mean practicing the Torah? Because the Talmud is literally just a commentary on the Torah. Also half the commentaries disagree with each other, so it's not exactly something you "practice" it's a scholarly book for Rabbis.
>>362590
A great deal of the Torah is actually considered something Jews need not follow until the temple is rebuilt.
I mean the Talmud, which also includes the Mosaic Laws the Pharisees said aren't in the Torah..
>>362618
That's not exactly correct. A great deal of the Torah is impossible to follow in current circumstances, either due to temple lack or because most people don't own land in Israel.
Also, the "laws" of the Talmud are all either sourced in some Torah verse or another or are extensions of the Sanhedrin's authority, they aren't Mosiatic laws at all.
>>361414
/thread
>>362618
Well you mentioned the Orthodox. Orthodox actually do practice a ton of of the more obscure laws. The only group that is more strict is the Haseeds.
The guys that don't follow as many laws are the laws are the Reform Jews.
All of the Mosiac laws are derivative of laws from the Torah. You take a passage and infer extra meaning from it, which is a pretty common practice among religion, that's how for instance the Just War theory is brought about.
>>362628
Yeah, you can't exactly sacrifice animals on a weekly basis anymore. Jews justify this by saying the meaning behind the laws is more important than actually following it letter for letter (funny enough this is exactly what Jesus said when the Pharisee accused him of breaking obscure laws)
>>362639
>The only group that is more strict is the Haseeds.
That's also not exactly correct. The main difference between Hasidim and "Orthodox" have less to do with level of observance or how strict you view the various religious laws, and more to do with a general philosophy underlying the observance of said laws. Hasidim follow a more "populist" and emotional sort of observance than the "mainstream Orthodox", focused less on learning and studying and trying to intellectualize observance, and more about trying to feel a personal emotional connection with God.
If you look at some sort of standard about observing any particular commandment, like, I don't know, Sabbath observance, you won't see too many differences.
>>362648
>(funny enough this is exactly what Jesus said when the Pharisee accused him of breaking obscure laws)
Funny enough, a lot of the "Pharisees" of the Gospels have Sadducee positions and use Sadducee terminology.
Now, I've seen a lot of different theories as to why this is, but it's a very plausible to say that the historic Jesus was more opposed to the Sadducees (think of how many times he crosses the Priesthood as opposed to any use of the term "Rabbi" as one of his opponents) and then someone edited the story later, possibly to conform with Roman ideas of which were the "good Jews" after the big revolt from 66-70.
>>361378
Apocalyptic messianic Judaism.
>>361378
people's republic/dictatorship of the proletariat=kingdom of god
Baptist, non of that country club or Westboro stuff.
>>363544
Ayy lmao
>>361378
Probably Coptic but that doesn't necessarily mean its correct. Not changing anything for hundreds of years doesn't make it true. A healthy church is like an organism, it adapts and developes over time while still retaining its core practices. It's no coincidence that the Catholic church is the only Apostolic church that still holds ecumenical councils, the Copts and Orthodox are frozen in time by schism with no clear leadership and burdened by an overbearing states, lost without the old empire to hold them together.
>>362314
There are some that have already become the Malankar Catholic church. Sorry orthobros beat you to it.
>>362318
It was mostly over corruption in the church not doctrinal changes.
>>361638
>doesn't even have charismatic gifts
You were good for a laff m8
>>361378
Palestinian Greek Orthodox as practiced by the Rum people of Palestine.
Coptic has some pretty ancient roots as well.
>>361452
I'll take some sauce with that, chef
>>362318
>Catholics tacking on new practices.
May as well topple the Orthodox as well then and call them heretics.
>>362466
>"It is written" establishes that Scripture was and is the final authority is all matters of doctrine and practice.
Which Jesus then overrides with His own spoken and Living Word.
>>362667
I think theologically speaking, the Pharisees were more aligned with Jesus in that accepted theological tenants such as life after death and angels were both shared by them.
>>362648
>>362667
Well regardless of which Jews were crossed the Sanhedrin court mentioned in the Gospels and used to convict Jesus of Blasphemy breaks various rather obvious Jewish laws concerning it anyway.
>Held at night
>In a private domicile
>Jesus is convicted by his own testimony
>Verdict is unanimous but Jesus is convicted anyway
>Jesus is crucified
>Jesus is handed over to the romans at all
>>366646
I also heard the penalty for blasphemy is stoning. If Pilate trying to judge Jesus by Jewish Laws (which is fucking to begin with, why would a Roman judge care about Jewish law? If he actually went through with it he would fucking killed for treason)
What the fuck actually happened at the trial? Nietzsche tried to argue Jesus was being tried as a political criminal, saying he was the King of the Jews. That actually makes sense.
Why do we have such an altered version? Barbara's name literally means "Jesus, son of the Father" and is accused of being a rebel, which sounds closer to the crime of Jesus. Jesus himself is supposed to be tried for breaking Jewish law which as I said makes no sense.
>>361378
Gnosticism.
>>366347
Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation.
Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?
>>369333
And also don't forget the others where he practically uses Tradition like when he was delivering his teachings and his parables. When this is realized, that one instance becomes irrelevant, especially when the only reason why we know that happened was because of Tradition itself since you know...the whole NT was developed from the Church's preaching not the other way round. For Sola Scriputura to be true, the other way round must be true. This shit never happened and thus...turns your defense of sola SCRIPTURA into shit
>>369635
Arianism STARTED from tradition. Not scripture.
None of them. Christianity lost its original meaning once it became the religion of vast empires. Happens with all religions.
>>361378
Orthodox.
>>361443
The coptic church broke off from the early church when they didn't accept some council or some shit. The differences are some minor differences in theology.
>>366367
Oh yeah, as well as a rather loose, "utilitarian" approach to Jewish law as opposed to black letter "DO IT THIS WAY" stuff.
You could make a plausible case that Jesus himself was a Pharisee, or at least was educated as one.
>>366646
Oh yeah, and you missed a few, such as striking the witness/accused, holding the court on a holiday, and not having the leader of the Sanhedrin (contemporarily Rabban Gamaliel, who gets a brief mention in Acts) presiding over the case.
>>366769
>I also heard the penalty for blasphemy is stoning
Correct, although "blasphemy" in old Jewish law was fairly restrictive, mostly about cursing or denying God.
>What the fuck actually happened at the trial? Nietzsche tried to argue Jesus was being tried as a political criminal, saying he was the King of the Jews. That actually makes sense.
At a gut guess, and bear in mind, this comes from a Jewish guy who skimmed the Gospels and Acts a while ago, so take it with a grain of salt:
Jesus's message seems very anti-Sadducee. If he wasn't a Pharisee himself, he was very likely to get a warmer reception among Pharisees than he would anywhere else in Jewish society. This is at a time when the Sadducees and Pharisees were at each other's throats again, and here he comes into Jerusalem, the center of Sadduceanism, and makes a mess of things, even going into the temple and attacking people.
But the Pharisees actually control the Sanhedrin, the "supreme court" as it were. If Ciaphas convenes a full hearing and tries to try Jesus, there's every chance he'll get off scott free, maybe with a few ideological chuckles over the latest Sadducee embarrassment. So he convenes a kangaroo court of his own supporters, "tries" and convicts Jesus. But he's got a problem, this isn't a "valid" court, and he doesn't actually have the power to execute Jesus. Well, the Sadducees were generally on pretty good terms with the Romans, and Pilate doesn't seem the sort to care too much if the next person he's executing is guilty or innocent, so they toss him at Pilate, hope for the best.
Later, his followers, who are writing these gospels after the Great Revolt, change a few things around to paint them as opposed to the Pharisees, who are in a bad light in contemporary Roman culture, as a way of making themselves seem like the good guys.
>>366104
>>361646
>I'm sure each little ethnic Orthodox church is pretty far deviated from the original type.
[citation needed]
Islam
>>361378
Gnostics
>>372054
[citation needed]
>>376895
Nice try, ghosts of the Inquisition!
>>376895
>people who didn't consider Jesus to be Christ were the earliest Christians
>>379086
If by Christ you mean a savior, than yes the Gnostics did consider Jesus to be a savior. But he didn't save people by killing himself in a human sacrifice, he came to give people the knowledge (or Gnosis) to set themself free.
If you mean did Gnostics consider Jesus a God, he was a divine spirit of some kind, he is the living Logos.
>>379138
By Christ I mean the word Greek speaking Jews used to refer to the Messiah.
>>372006
According to Wikipedia, they broke off after the Council of Chalcedon declared that Christ was conceived IN the Holy Spirit instead of being conceived OF the Holy Spirit, which apparently makes a big difference in terms of His metaphysical nature?
I don't pretend to understand it.
>>379966
In leads to the implication that Jesus is Two persons, while OF has Him as one person.
>>379966
They broke off because they think Christ is one nature, human and divine, instead of two natures, human and divine. It's really the same thing, but they thought the rest of Church was advocating Nestorianism, and the rest of the Church thought they were advocating monophysitism.
Orthodox and Coptic already agreed it was all a misunderstanding and it's just semantics. The Coptic Church is also are totally in line with everything the subsequent Ecumenical Councils affirmed.
>>380041
How so? Genuinely curious here.
>>380045
>Orthodox and Coptic already agreed it was all a misunderstanding and it's just semantics.
So they officially realized they believe the same things and made up? Why is there still a separate Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria then?
>>380048
Nestorians think Christ's human and divne natures are seperable. The Orthodox Church says they are unseperable, but the Coptic Church didn't understand that. And the Orthodox Church thought the Coptics were advocating NEstorianism (Christ's human nature being "absorbed" by the divine, leaving just the divine nature, which is different from "miaphyitism", which is what the Coptic Church actually believes, that is one nature, both human and divine).
>>380061
They're still just clearing things up, it takes time to finalize everything. The Coptic Church already allows all Eastern Orthodox living in Egypt to receive communion at any Coptic Church, and the Orthodox Church has allowed the Coptic Pope to administrate them while their Alexandrian Patriarch was away. In all countries, any Orthodox married to a Coptic can receive communion, as well as any Orthodox who doesn't have a Church within reasonable range. The Orthodox Church also allows Coptics to receive communion, iirc.
Both recognize each other as equally valid, and the One Church (something neither recognizes in the Catholic Church). They are very closet to being totally unified, but it will probably take twenty more years to fully iron everything out.
>>380077
Oh, and this relationship with the Coptics allies to all Oriental Orthodox. For instance, there are several Ethiopian Orthodox women and men at my parish who get communion there, even though they are Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox.
>>380092
I think it would be harder for a Catholic to united with Coptics, because from what I've seen (on this board, that is), Catholics see adding to the deposit of faith to be the point of Ecumenical Councils, whereas the Orthodox Church sees the point of Ecumenical Councils as simply affirming and preserving what was already always there in autistic terms to stop heretics from trying to alter the faith. So from an Orthodox perspective, the Coptic Church not participating in any Ecumenical Council after the Third is not a problem at all, because they didn't deal with the attacks on the faith that the subsequent Ecumenical Councils were in response to.
>>380155
It is very interesting that Francis has been making a push to unite with the Orthodox. I wonder what the Copts think of that. I wonder if they'll show up at the Third Council of Nicaea in 2025.
>>380155
>I think it would be harder for a Catholic to united with Coptics, because from what I've seen (on this board, that is), Catholics see adding to the deposit of faith to be the point of Ecumenical Councils, whereas the Orthodox Church sees the point of Ecumenical Councils as simply affirming and preserving what was already always there in autistic terms to stop heretics from trying to alter the faith.
We do? I was never the best Catholic, but I always understood the Ecumenical Councils as affirming and clarifying the existing beliefs of the Church.
>>380175
Coptics are super traditional. It will be sort of tricky because while the Orthodox Church sort of wrinkles her nose at using modern art and music in the liturgy (as in, any styles from the Renaissance onward), and using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, we still don't see them as standing in the way of uniting the Churches, that is, we don't think Catholics have to scrap that even though we don't really approve of it. But the Coptics are somewhat more hardass about those things, I'm not sure they're okay with Low Mass, let alone Tridentine Mass, *let alone* the Mass of Paul VI. The Coptic Church would be okay with Latin Rite, but the Medieval, High Mass version.
However, if there is a Coptic merger with the Orthodox Church first, I think it would be a lot easier to deal with all that
>>380219
I have seen a couple of Catholics here fault the Orthodox Church for being "stagnant" and not being "organic", and they substantiated this by pointing out the Orthodox Church hasn't had any Ecumenical Councils since the schism.
non-denomination. there is only one church
>>380238
So, are Mormons and Muslims a part of it?
>>380236
The Second Vatican Council isn't dogma, after all. It can always be undone in the name of greater Christian unity.
>>380247
the church is christ so no
>>380261
Well, it's not just Vatican II, but yeah, none of what I'm talking about here is dogma in the Catholic Church, it's just a question of whether or not Catholics are okay to going back to extremely traditional Catholic Mass. It doesn't have to be in Latin, though (but I never understood why Catholics didn't just go to alternating language with bilingual books, like the Orthodox often do, as opposed to almost totally dropping your liturgical language from Mass).
>>380265
Muslims think Christ is the Messiah. So do Mormons.
>>361591
>>375042
>>380300
but they don't believe or accept the spirit of christ. the church is christ, who is also his believers
>>380501
How don't they?
>>380501
At least with Muslims, the Quran explicitly claims that Jesus denies being God, or in any way a divine being.
>>380566
Jesus is considered divine in Islam, since he literally God's word made flesh and born of a virgin, and able to speak from birth. He is not considered God himself, though.
>>363508
Is God equal to man? Are we all as powerful as God?
>>381119
By "Christ" I mean "Christ". It means, "the anointed one," being a translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". The Greek word for savior, or deliverer, is soter.
GNOSTICS GET OUT
>>381291
Isn't it ironic that the Gnost tradition survived in the Free Masons who ended up infiltrating and controlling the Catholics in the 60s.
It took about 2,000 years but the Gnostic are finally getting their revenge.
>>380238
>special snowflake protestant
>>364666
>Implying shouting and babbling meaningless gibberish is from God and not Satan
>Not having real God-given gifts like divine healing
>>381291
this mad hylic
no pleroma for you
>all these niggers unironically debating the canon of their favorite middle eastern fairytales
Kek. Feels good being a deist
>>380300
>Muslims think Christ is the Messiah.
They don't, they consider him just a prophet.
>>382829
>Isa Ibn Maryam (Arabic: عيسى بن مريم, translit. ʿĪsā ibn Maryām; English: Jesus, son of Mary), or Jesus in the New Testament, is considered to be a Messenger of God and al-Masih (the Messiah) in Islam[1][2]
