Ok so based on my readings of the scholarly literature there seems to be a general consensus about how to model the evolution of church orders. My intention here is to only give a general schematic of this model and not advocating it or arguing against it. Stage 1 - Charismatic Era (AD 30 - AD 115ish?)This era was largely characterized by mendicant itinerant teachers and apostles (like Paul or Apollos) who traveled between different communities each with their own interpretation of the evangelion (gospel). Ekklesiae ("churches") were spirit-filled assemblies where members would gather in households to manifest spiritual gifts and partake in a love-feast which included a nascent-Eucharist meal. At least in the context of gentile churches, leader(s) of the assembly would be whoever hosted the gathering, which were the "bishops" and "deacons". These early churches were particularly egalitarian and very possibly had female leaders, as indicated in the Pauline epistles. Major Jewish centers of Christianity like Jerusalem and Antioch had a body of elders modeled on synagogue leadership and lacked any discernible diaconate as indicated in Acts.
Stage 2 - Early Clericalism (AD 80 - AD 140ish?)With the death of the original apostles the leadership of the community began to fall on the next generation of Christians. Many continued to carry on the legacy of the Charismatic Era for decades to come, however a new rising-power structure was emerging in the assemblies in conflict with the charismatics over the rise of perceived false prophets and apostles as evidenced in the Pastoral epistles, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache. During this time, house-churches began to finds themselves coming under the control of a single bishop and his delegates the deacons. The bishop, likely a wealthy male member of the community who hosted gatherings in his home, assumed some familiar roles from Roman society, acting as the paterfamilias of the church, and would form networks with other wealthy Christian men who did likewise. This was particularly true in the Roman Church, which likely was made up of multiple house churches each with their own bishop, and one of these house churches would become so prominent that way down the line it would become the Papacy. In this era we begin to see the first codification of church law and household codes that reflected Roman society.
>>18467511Anyone who posts after me is gay. If you read this and posted, you’re gay.
Stage 3 - Rise of the Bishop (AD 105 - AD 150ish?)Beginning sometime in the early second century, as evidence by Ignatius of Antioch, we begin to see the first unfolding of the familiar threefold structure of today, with bishops, presbyters, and deacons. This model may have first developed in Antioch under Ignatius himself, though it's entirely possible it developed concurrently elsewhere depending on how literally Ignatius's references to bishops in other cities in Asia may be. Scholars aren't entirely sure. Nevertheless, while this structure was the earliest form of episcopacy, it was still primitive and does not attest to the later concept of a prince-bishop. In this model, the bishops were not successors to the apostles, but "images" of God the Father, the presbyters were "images" of the apostles, and the deacons were "images" of Jesus Christ, and together they would form a symposium, where the bishop would be seen as the president of a valid Eucharist with his delegates the presbyters. This seems a bit alien to those familiar with the structure as it now exists in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism, but this is how Ignatius seems to understand it, and it this idea of his seems to at least have been partially influenced from pagan mystery religion and the ideals of the Second Sophistic with "divine tupoi" and "homonoia" respectively. It was basically from this structure that the "catholic" church first emerged.
Stage 3.5 - Return of the Charismatics (AD 130 - AD 200ish?)During the middle of the second century, prophecy and charismatic gifts began to make a comeback, beginning in the region of Phrygia among the Montanists, and spreading throughout the networks of churches throughout, as far as North Africa as evidenced by Tertullian. The Montanists were not the only ones claiming charismatic gifts, indeed this was also characteristic of certain Gnostic groups who may have been continuing in the tradition of the original charismatic era up to this point. The charismatics soon found themselves in conflict with the early catholics who attached themselves to the authority of the one bishop and it was from this that orthodoxy and heterodoxy came to be defined.
Stage 4 - Apostolic Succession (AD 165 - Nicene Era) The idea of apostolic succession did not originate in this era and seems to have it roots earlier in the late 1st century as evidenced by 1 Clement, however it was truly Hegessipus and Irenaeus who developed the concept how it is commonly understood today, under the threefold model, but departing from the original Ignatian theology behind it and re-adapting it to combat Gnosticism. At this time many Gnostic groups (e.g. Valentinians, Basilideans), claimed to have received their teachings from the apostles or their close associates. Some continued to be part of the mainstream house churches under a bishop, but many also began forming rival ekklesiae in opposition to bishops. Some, like the Marcionites, even began forming entirely rival networks of churches with their own Bible. Hegessipus and Irenaeus developed a catholic model of apostolic succession to combat this, positioning bishops as the "diadoche" to the apostles, much in the same way that the heads of an ancient Greek philosophical school were seen as successors to the philosopher who began that school (e.g. Theophrastus to Aristotle). Irenaeus in particular also polemically positioned Gnostic teachers not as successors to the apostles, or inheritors of their traditions, but instead as successors of Simon Magus, the arch-heretic of early Christianity. Christians could now be vindicated as orthodox if they could prove they were under a bishop with a verifiable list of successors. With these kinds of developments, the bishop soon began to take on more of a princely role in the Church and we would begin to see the first developments of sacerdotalism take off, though sacerdotalism already had some precedent in an earlier era in writers such as Tertullian, but a more full blown notion would begin to take off in writers like Cyprian of Carthage later in the 3rd century. Thus we begin to see the first big separation between clergy and laity in the Church.
>>18467511You're going to burn in hell for all eternity and me and God will be laughing at you. We will laugh. You will scream and cry, but we'll be making fun of you. Have fun burning. Enjoy hell.
>>18468026based retard
>>18468027You think you won't escape the fires of hell? You're going to burn too. Unless you become a Bible Believing, KJV-Only, Independent Fundamental Baptist, New Testament, Christian, you will burn forever and ever and ever.
>>18468030>KJV-Only>Doesn't read the infallible Good Day Ministries TranslationYou are so fucked :)
>>18468026Anon, argument ad nauseum is not persuasive.
>>18468124Argumentum ad nauseam is not persuasive.
>>18468139Argumentum ad nauseam is not persuasive, by the way.
>>18468036Those flames just got hotter.>>18468139 >>18468124You will burn.
>>18468144When God throws you into the dark abyss, I wonder what the look on your face will be. I'm betting, absolute shock and horror. You are so fucked. :)
>>18468124>>18468139>>18468142It's good for memorization though. Its a way to determine who is a Deacon, and who is a Bishop.
Pentecostals were right all along. Wow.
>>18468236Nobody has it "right" in the way you're thinking. The model we get paints a more complex picture about the emergence of these structures than simple theology polemics would have you believe. Each theological camp wants to paint an idealized vision of early Christianity that is convenient for their positions.
>>18467511>>18467513>>18467517>>18467519>>18467525Thank you for posting all of this.
>>18468264You're very welcome. This is of course only a summary of the model and there's even more to it than this and not every question has been resolved.
>>18467525>At this time many Gnostic groups (e.g. Valentinians, Basilideans), claimed to have received their teachings from the apostles or their close associates.Interesting. This is something I've wondered about, whether there were competing claims of apostolic succession in early Christianity. Could there be any truth to the gnostics' claims? What reason do we have to believe one group over another when they claim their teachings are apostolic?
>>18468318>could there be truth to gnostic claimsLol no.
>>18468318>What reasonThere are three components needed to actualize.The knowledge of how to actualize.The motivation to actualize.The ability to actualize.Reasoning is tied to knowledge and information transfer, but that is not how prophecy is judged. Prophecy is judged by the taste of the fruit, which is linked to motivation and will.If no one wants to eat the fruit of a logic tree, it doesnt matter if the argument is valid. It will be judged as unsound, and no one will listen to it., because no one wants the fruit that the recipe creates. This is why people will tell you that belief is a choice. Religions are codes that produce fruit. You need to select the recipe that bakes the best bread.
Without a shadow of a doubt, communities coming from the 12 and the core from after Jesus rose had Eucharist from day 1, and it was central, but remember that before that, it spread like wildfire and without total clarity of the mysteries.Central leaders existed in every community and appealed to higher authorities via letters because that's just how reality works, God worked through it, you need a local leader because authoritative letters from the core saints travel very hard.
>>18468251Think of it like a marketplace, the best survives alongside the one branch that God actually wants to survive because it preserves the kernels of the Revelation intact.
>>18468030Where in the Bible does it say the only read the KJV?
>>18469148It says to do good, and the KJV is a good translation with good English.If you only want soul in your translations, then you have no choice! So KJV only.I'm ESL, and I prefer the ESV tbqh and David Bentley Hart's NT.
>>18468658What kind of bullshit is this to say in response to a historical question on a history board? I'm just curious about how different sects of early Christianity might or might not have preserved the teachings of Jesus and his immediate disciples. The answer doesn't affect my religious beliefs because I don't believe in Christianity regardless.
