Which is the purest church?

It is literally Catholic Church. No matter how hard you'll try to deny that, it's still true.

Every organization that claims to be a Church but doesn't have apostolic succesion is just LARPing as Church.

I hope nobody seriously considers Russian Orthodoxy considering the country has rampant aids, alcoholism, sexual disease and drug epidemics

peter never actually set foot in rome

the catholic church doesn't have apostolic succession

No other body has taken the words of Jesus as close to their heart and into action as much as the Swedish Protestant Church

Sorry man, Irenaeus of Lyons is much bigger authority for me than you are.

>Irenaeus
>writing 100 years later
>meanwhile Paul in his letters to the Christian community in Rome never once mentions Peter
>according to earlier Christian literature Peter is entrusted with spreading the gospel to the circumcised
Yeah, sure

>1 Pet 5:13 doesn't exist
>there was no Jewish diaspora in Rome
>all earliest traditions of both Orthodoxy and Catholic Church are invalid because reasons

Pet 5:13 doesn't exist
Doesn't even mention Rome, and the Petrine epistles are forged according to most modern scholars anyway.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

First Christians:
>kept Mosaic law
>believed the world was about to end
>believed having faith in Jesus would give them magic powers (immunity to snake venom, glossolalia etc)

Probably American protestants desu.

Babylon was widely used nickname for Rome at the time, which also shows up in Apocalypse of St John.

Not only St Irenaeus relays the tradition according to which Peter was a bishop in Rome, virtually all Church Fathers agree upon this which points to widespread agreement of Peter being in Rome.

The third point isn’t necessarily false.

The Ebionites
>Jesus born from two human parents
>Davidic decent from his father Joseph
>Adopted by God
>Regarded Paul as a false apostle who probably wasn't even Jewish to begin with
>Kept Jewish law and rituals
>Gentiles had to get circumcised
>No trinity
>No virgin birth
Pretty much Judaism, but with Jesus as Messiah.

>today

this
they don't really exist (Jews for Jesus try to larp them) but ebionites were probably the closest

Christianity was a replacement for Judaism, not an addition.

>Christianity was a replacement for Judaism, not an addition.
well islam is a replacement for both of them

Jews for Jesus is just evangelical Christianity with a yarmulke. Its founder was a Baptist minister.

doubt Jesus would agree with that

Neoplatonic Islam is, by definition, the purest religion.

You'd be wrong then. The Apostles clearly taught that the new covenant with Christ was the final covenant God made with all humanity and the old covenant with Israel had ended as it had served it's purpose. Unless you want to argue that Jesus taught them wrong then you're mistaken.

>the apostles
One person pretending to be Paul (who was not even a real apostle himself)*

you realise that gospels aren't exactly historical sources, right?
ebionites and nazirites had their own gospels,
distinct from those written by gnostics and those who later become "christianity"

Read the Gospel of John

Hi, I'm Ajit Pai, and I photo shopped my own dick into my mouth, because nobody will ever love me C:

The Gospels in the Bible were written by the Apostles you moron

It was probably like scientology or some such bullshit cult

no they weren't
they circulated anonymously before anyone even slapped a title "by Mark" or "by John"

They were accepted by the students of the apostles. You don't think Johns students would know if John himself wrote the gospel that they themselves used to teach others? You're stretching.

A Messianic group set up a congregation in my former neighborhood.
I know they're pretty much a relatively recent development but I've always had a desire for ancient Judaic customs to be reincorporated into Christianity voluntarily. I think such movements are a step in the right direction.
Personally though if I were to choose a church the Orthodox look most appealing for their retention of the most traditions. Taking that denomination quiz I get Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy at the top of the list.
I can agree easily with Lutheran precepts just not with those of the largest libertine churches.

Ethiopians and Assyrians are probably the most distant from western Christendom but will still exhibit familiar habits. Copts are probably a step closer due to their greater Hellenization in script and language.

in 330-s people still didn't believe Apocalypse was written by John the Evangelist, and argued against it
plenty of letters, like that of Judah or second of Paul, were tought as pseudoepigraphic
Christians in Rome didn't accept letter to Hebrews
on the other hand, Book of Henoch was and still is canon for Ethiopian Christians

please, read something about formation of canon, and don't repeat stuff from sunday school

Which Christianity is the closest to it's earliest known form? I know it's not Catholicism or Protestantism.

>read something about formation of canon
I'll say the same to you. Remember that the opinion of secular scholars has absolutely no relevance to the topic. The important thing is how the gospels are interpreted by Christians. Not secular post-modern hacks. You need to cite Catholic scholarship to support your points otherwise they're moot.

Catholicism wasn't as divergent past ages, some of the mainline Protestants may retain customs of Catholics from the medieval period that modern Catholics may have dropped, don't know any specific examples off the top of my head though.
One of the main perks western Christianity has is possessing the most eminent saints, writers, and theologians of world Christianity.

>Remember that the opinion of secular scholars has absolutely no relevance to the topic.
wow

>One of the main perks western Christianity has is possessing the most eminent saints, writers, and theologians of world Christianity.

Peturbing the purity isn't a perk. They muddy the message of Christ.

Why would the opinion of atheists have any relevance to the topic of which branch of Christianity practices the traditions closest to those of early Christians? They're not qualified.

Well it should also be noted that such personalities can also be accredited with developing the concept of theology as we know it.

>Why would the opinion of atheists have any relevance to the topic of which branch of Christianity practices the traditions closest to those of early Christians? They're not qualified.
why not? they can be, especially when they are good historians. Which many of them are.

>This is your brain on Abrahamism

I'll concur that the Gnostic texts don't have much of a case for authenticity anymore than canonical texts do but people in their frenzy for having the latest discoveries and things they want to believe the churches were keeping suppressed from everyone, will latch on to anything.

Probably the bigger dubiousness is with all the divisive Christological debates of church patriachs during the patristic period.

>why not?
Because it's a matter of theology, not history. Why would you turn to a secular historian to answer a question that basically boils down to which sect of Christianity is correct? Most of them quite rightly stay well away from such questions because whether Catholic or Orthodox practice correctly is not within their purview.

The question was:

>Which church is most similar today to how Christianity was originally, a.k.a the Christianity practiced by the first Christians in the decades following Christs crucifixion?

That's a theological question that has to do with how Christianity is practiced, not a historical question.

...

>Because it's a matter of theology, not history. Why would you turn to a secular historian to answer a question that basically boils down to which sect of Christianity is correct? Most of them quite rightly stay well away from such questions because whether Catholic or Orthodox practice correctly is not within their purview.
we don't talk about who is correct
we talk about who is closest to the original, which is a historical question

Jehowah Witnesses may theoretically be correct, but they are not historically closest to original Christianity

Are you seriously claiming that discussing Christian theology requires faith in the Christian god?

Jesus's true teachings are lost to history. Paul, who never met Jesus was probably an Arian/Adoptionist. The synoptic Gospels are the closest historical record we have of him and they barely even hint at the idea of him being God, and in fact directly contradict the idea in several places. Most of what we now know as Christian theology was invented by Greek and Latin speaking gentiles in the intervening centuries.

There are Assyrian Christians who (a) were never affected by Constantine or anyone like that (b) live a mile from caves that had Christian hermits living in them before Muhammad lived and (c) speak the same native language as most of the earliest Christians and probably Jesus Christ and would be considered part of the same "Aramean" people of the Fertile Crescent as they were.

Many of you probably don't know they (Eastern Syrian-rite Churches) have their own version of the Lord's prayer. Since even Wikipedia doesn't say it. After "thy Kingdom come" they say "Holy, holy, you are holy, Our Father Who Is In Heaven. Heaven and earth are filled with the greatness of your glory. Angels and men cry out to you: Holy, holy, you are holy." Then the Lord's Prayer continues from the start without these words after thy Kingdom come, and ends with for thine is the Kingdom, etc. And all of this is sung, not spoken, most of the time.

>Ethiopians and Assyrians are probably the most distant from western Christendom

The St. Thomas Christians are an indigenous early Christian group similar to Assyrians and they may have been be the most distant from the West and Europe of all, more than those two. However, the Portuguese took over and tried to Roman Catholicize them so not only are they Western-influenced now but some of their heritage is lost and unknown. Peculiar practices include the St. Thomas dance and Hindu-inspired marriage customs. Then there are the Nestorian Chinese of the same gtoup as thr above two which are either extinct or, as someone speculated, went missing for centuries.

Are you seriously claiming that a person who doesn't have faith in the Christian God can have the perspective to add anything meaningful to a discussion about how Christianity should be practiced? The core of the faith is doing as God commands us to do, if you don't believe in God then you have nothing to base your argument on. You're treating the Bible as nothing more than a book instead of a spiritual document so how can you actually discuss the spiritual content of it?

In the Peshitta it follows the same as in every other Bible, what you're referring to is the liturgical use. Scholarship considers the doxology to be a later integration anyways. The Peshitta is also believed to be translated from Greek by most scholarship except for the Lamsa Peshitta primacists.
St. Thomas Christians were originally in communion with Assyrians before European colonialism. It's probably no coincidence that they both have a Thomas as a patron saint. The Mar Thoma Church is in communion with Anglicans and uses West Syrian traditions.

>Are you seriously claiming that a person who doesn't have faith in the Christian God can have the perspective to add anything meaningful to a discussion about how Christianity should be practiced?
There is no fucking "should" anywhere near this discussion.

>The core of the faith is doing as God commands us to do, if you don't believe in God then you have nothing to base your argument on.
Except for the entire written history of Christianity and Christian thought.

>You're treating the Bible as nothing more than a book instead of a spiritual document so how can you actually discuss the spiritual content of it?
The spiritual component is not what is being discussed here, and again there is no "should". If YOUR particular flavor of Christianity says "and the lord said dress up in drag and fellatiate one another" then a secular historian isn't going to say "but that's wrong and you shouldn't do that", they'll simply examine and discuss differences between your flavor of Christianity and others, as well as the relevant historiographies.

>Except for the entire written history of Christianity and Christian thought.
Which you can't interpret properly because you're viewing them from a secular perspective instead of the proper theological perspective from which they were written. It's simply impossible to weigh in on any theological issue if you're not doing so from the perspective of someone who believes in God, period. Sorry, but that's just a fact.

Feel free to discuss historical facts about Christianity but the practices of early Christians is a theological issue. There's a reason Bishops and not Historians were invited to the council of Nicea

>In the Peshitta it follows the same as in every other Bible, what you're referring to is the liturgical use.

Indeed.

>The Peshitta is also believed to be translated from Greek

Do you mean the Peshitta New Testament? I don't see why the OT would be since there were already the Targums or whatever.

Pretty much none. Orthodox is about 7th century. So take it or leave it.

The Orthodox Church has remained unchanged since the 3rd century

As a man that has done some study of the Bible, taught in churches, and has been around many different protestant ideas: Messianic Judaism. Catholicism and Protestantism tend to get bogged down in things you could say are not unlawful but simply not profitable. Catholicism tends to focus on the ceremony and religiousness and Protestantism on.. well depends on the church or denomination what they screw up on. Any church that teaches OT without grace of the NT or NT without understanding of the OT are probably not anywhere close. In Christian circles you hear the phrase "Acts 2 church" that is a great start, but only the milk, if a church can't push you to the meat, it probably isn't worth attention.

The language of Yeshua was a western dialect. The closest living dialect would be the Maaloula dialect.
Syriac apparently was the prestige dialect of Aramaic among non-Jewish Mesopotamian Aramaeans or Syro-Phoenicians as they are called in the New Testament. It is an eastern dialect like Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and modern eastern neo-Aramaic languages include Christian, Jewish, and Mandaean dialects. The language seems to have grown in use after the second century after a period of general decline of Aramaic languages due to Hellenization.

As for which church is the most original it's really like a mix of factors that make different churches more authentic than the other.
With the Greek Orthodox you have the usage of the very language of New Testament scripture but are a more institutional church and a vestige of Roman imperialism.
Syrian Orthodox use a form of what is believed to be the oldest liturgy even though the original or oldest form of the liturgy is preserved in Greek and is used by Greek Orthodox but not regularly. Assyrians were among the earliest to split and their liturgy is believed to be related to the Syrian rite both being considered Antiochean rites. Assyrians currently don't make use of iconography in worship service either.
Ethiopians may indirectly emulate the manner of the first Jewish Nazarenes through their combination of their native pre-Christian Judaic and Pagan traditions which may have remained undisturbed due to their presence away from the developments and intrigues taking place in Rome and may have been even more sheltered from it after the spread of the Arab conquests and being in communion with a Coptic church as opposed to a Roman one.

Greek Orthodox would seem to be the most widespread and accessible of these. Copts are the most widespread of the Oriental Orthodox churches along maybe with Ethiopian Orthodox but the Ethiopians along with the rest of the Oriental Orthodox churches would seem atm to be primarily focused on ministering to their respective diaspora communities.

You act like the last of the first seven ecumenical councils wasnt in 787.

The OT could have been influenced by the targums or maybe the Septuagint.
The targums could have also been influenced by the Septuagint or maybe a pre-Masoretic Hebrew version that was more in accordance with the Septuagint than later variants.

Messianic Judaism is an umbrella term for several judeo-christian groups that believe in Jesus. Some are trinitarian and others are unitarian; some regard Jesus as divine and others just as a prophet; etc.

>The language seems to have grown in use after the second century after a period of general decline of Aramaic languages due to Hellenization.

The Palmyrene Empire does not suggest a decline of Aramaic due to Greek in the 2nd century. And also some dialects were simply not written which is another reason for its spread. Some of the eastern Aramaic dialects you mentioned existed then but weren't written down until after 1600. And besides, why would they be more affected by Hellenization than more western dialects such as Edessene Syriac?

One thing we can be sure is that it's definitely NOT what usually passes for """Christianity""" in Burgerland.

I didn't know Texas is the U.S. now.

I've never talked to anyone that described Messianic Judaism as anything outside the idea of those that do believe Christ is the Messiah. The idea of Christ being a prophet is more of an Islamic idea iirc.

An outstanding number of Christians call him a false teacher or at the very least just a bad pastor. They just aren't the folk posting crap about him on the internet much so people outside the religion don't see that.

The Babylonian Talmud was written in Babylonian Aramaic and Tannaitic Hebrew. There is also a Jerusalem Talmud which is a primary source of Palestinian Aramaic.
What I read and understand to have occured was after the conquests of Alexander the Great the once official Imperial Aramaic language fell into decline and replaced by Greek in administrative use. There were certainly Aramaic speakers still around along with some literature and inscriptions being produced but Hellenization appears already during that period to have affected orthography due to the language no longer being standardized and centralized. Not to mention vernacular dialectal divergence probably began early in the Old Aramaic or Assyrian Babylonian periods.
The growth of Syriac appears to represent a kind of revival which coincided with the gradual collapse of Roman influence and control.

why not just read the bible and follow what it teaches? isn't that what christianity is?

Nah there are also these things called traditions which most religions with scriptural texts worldwide also consider important and not to be overlooked.
Being a scripturalist is more of an easy road to take because it only requires for one to shut oneself out from all the other factors surrounding their religion and culture and follow conventional readings mindlessly.

Wow buddy! Good job! You figured it out!

Reading the bible, including understanding why that text was collated, IS VERY DIFFICULT.

Yes. This debate is basically a bunch of textual criticism with no real heart. Though going further than a selfish view of the faith takes study and help.

Demonstrate how inspiration can be demonstrated. Inspiration is necessarily eisegetic.

Nobody is interpolation their own interpretation of god in these discussions. They're simply examining historical texts and drawing evidence-based conclusions that have nothing to do with their faith or a lack thereof. Does someone have to be a bird to be an ornithologist?

I'm guessing by "inspiration" you mean progression within the faith or to be closer to God? We are talking about religion. Namely the Christian religion. The salvation through which is not really in the hands of men. God moves the heart and each person chooses to respond or ignore. Now inspiration to further the faith or become more educated in the faith doesn't strictly come from reading the text. The text is the key to truly advancing in the faith, but the spur to move forward would fall under the idea of the relationship with God. This board is full of people that value the written word above most else, so the idea of a religious text being the sole mover in an idea is an easy thought to swallow. Indeed there is nothing within the Bible that negates learning, in fact it encourages learning. The big factor though will always be the person, just because it is read and understood doesn't mean it is acted on. And lets be honest getting into the realm of exegesis is something that most leave to the pastors or leaders to explain.

I mean ask yourself why you are here in this thread now? Are we simply here to force our words into someone else or see a different facet of the same diamond? Are we truly able to put aside disagreements on interpretation that don't matter? While knowledge of the text is important to going beyond just salvation, knowledge in place of a relationship with Christ is nothing more than a stumbling block.

I do theology in my spare time as a fun break from historiography.

"Inspiration" in the sense of being divinely moved is impossible to communicate. Unless I am seperately inspired I can't tell god from satan in you. For saints there is gods touch, for everyone else an amusingly text.

This isn't /x/. We deal with texts.

Actually you can argue the idea that inspiration can be tested by the secular eye. If it lines up with ideas pointed out by scripture then it is a Godly inspiration. This idea is throughout the New Testament when it talked about false teachers. Which is why I still say the text is vital but it isn't the source of inspiration. It isn't /x/ to acknowledge the idea of the spiritual in the topic of religion.

Catholic Church.

>If it lines up with ideas pointed out by scripture then it is
Textual analysis.

Incorrect. The answer is any churches that proclaim the LORD.

Go back to your clown mass buddy.

t. Sign of Contradiction

Christians and Jews have a different understanding of what the messiah is. The former think it's God incarnate, while the latter view him as a kickass king who will free the Jews from oppression forever.

its early days*

A Vandal magister with known Arian tendencies was holding a symposium in honour of Demophilus, a known schismatic.
"Before the toasts begin, you must get on your knees and worship God and accept that he was the most divine entity the ecumene has ever known, even greater than Christus whom he created!"

At this moment, a venerable Praepositus Limitis who had served on the frontiers for decades and understood the necessity of taming the Barbaricum and fully supported the creed promulgated by the great Constantinus rose from his couch and held up a crucifix.

"Who does this represent?"

The Rhenian cur smirked quite devilishly and smugly replied "the created child of an indivisible God"

"You miss the point. Jesus Christ our Dominus is of the same substance as God and thus equal to Him."

The heretic was visibly shaken, and dropped his wine krater and copy of Eusebius' Onomastikon. He stormed out of the banquet hall crying those laetus crocodile tears. The same tears Donatists and Priscillians cry for the "poor" (who today are so holy that saints vie to kiss their feet) as they flee Roman territory to the outrage-committing Bacaudae in Armorica. There is no doubt that at this point the "learned" Vandal wished he had studied the work of the Holy Apostles and become more than a ludicrous teacher of rhetoric. He wished so much that he had a spatha to disembowel himself with due to the shame but he had sold all the city's arms for Gaiseric's ransom pay!

The partygoers politely clapped and all ceased their apostasy that day and accepted Jesus as the true Son of God. An divine light suddenly shone into the room and blazed upon the bust of Augustine and the statue wept miraculously. The Nicene Creed was recited, and Jesus Monogenes himself descended and banished the barbarians to the hellish wastes beyond the limes.

The magister lost his tongue and was castrated the following day. He was exiled to Troesmis, far from from God's Light.

Praise Jesus Consubstantialis