What are practices of the early Christians that would surprise current Christians, in general?

>>17753603 (OP)
Lack of universal belief in a historical Jesus(as even secular historians understand him, or as modern apologetics do), for one.
Female clergy being common.
Lack of respect for "canon".

>>17753603 (OP)
The only ones who would be surprised by practices of the first Christians would be Protestants.

>>17753613
How so?

>>17753608
>Lack of universal belief in a historical Jesus
what?

>>17753616
>Eucharist
>Veneration of Saints
>Liturgy
>Hierachical priesthood.

>>17753619
Ignore him, he's a mythicist, he's retarded.

>>17753603 (OP)
it resembles islam (jewish christian sect) more than their religion

>>17753603 (OP)
Self castration. Anti natalism.

>>17753603 (OP)
God being in you

>>17753619
They would not all have believed in a Jesus who walked around on Earth and was killed by Jews and Romans outside of Jerusalem. The general "historical" Jesus. There would have been some who did, but there were plenty who didn't, and this conflict can even be found IN the Bible itself.
They instead believed in a revelatory Jesus, who only appeared in visions, never on Earth in a body (as Paul overwhelmingly indicated).
>>17753623
None of those are present in EARLY Christianity, they're all later.

>>17753623
Don't Lutherans and Anglicans have that stuff, anyhow? I'm not sure about Calvinists, Baptists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals, though.

>>17753648
>None of those are present in EARLY Christianity
Define "early".

>>17753654
Pre-First Council, generally. Some of those aspects were probably emerging among some sects and groups and cults of Christians, but pretending they existed in their modern, mature form is a bit silly.

>>17753661
>Pre-First Council
The you're fucking wrong, because all of those things were absolutely present in Christianity prior to Nicaea.

Sinning as much as possible because all their sins are already forgiven lol

Then Paul came along and added random bullshit to say the blood sacrifice of jesus will stop working if you sin too much. Even if its explicitly stated earlier you're completely forgiven

>>17753603 (OP)
These are the Beliefs of the Proto-Orthodox/early church fathers that might seem weird.
-Iconoclasm
-Communal living
-Abstention from politics and political offices
-Pacifism/Anti-Self-defense
-Asceticism
-Presbyterian polity but no physical church
-Trinitarian Subordinationism
-Full vailing of women when outside or with another man who isn't her father or husband and women not working outside the home/being home bound because natural law
-Male headship (Women not allowed to speak to other men and have to speak through their husbands) because natural law
-Shunning
-Premillennialism
-Against entertainment of all kinds
-Synergism and Semi-Pelagianism
-Open theism
-Men having short hair and beards because natural law
-Heaven just being earth after the resurrection
-Anti-Judaism/thinking the ritual laws of the torah were manmade and demonic
-Thinking it's a sin to grieve the dead because "that would deny the resurrection"
-OT reference to physical sighting of God actually being Jesus
-OT references to Joshua actually being Jesus
See for more info: https://ante-nicenechristianity.com

>>17753666
Not in their mature form, and not with that hard terminology.
For example, the Eucharist. That's a very, very specific idea, which is NOT certainly present.
And the use of the term "veneration of saints" implies that there was a central body canonizing saints, which didn't exist. Early Christians were a very scattered, small group with a huge cloud of wildly diverging beliefs on very fundamental issues.

>>17753683
>Not in their mature form
What the fuck does that even mean "mature" form? Were they present or were they not? It seems to me like you're defining them very arbitrarily just so that you can dismiss them and can alienate Primitive Christianity from modern Christianity for some reason.

>>17753689
>What the fuck does that even mean "mature" form?
It means what it looks like it means. The way they are practiced today, and the codified strictures around them. The ground for those later inventions was set, and I'm sure they existed in a fairly diffuse and diverse form in some Christian groups. But they didn't spring up from a Christian hivemind out of nothing. They were decided later when the Church became an entity in its own right and gained the power to force minor groups to compliance and dictate central commands to those already in its ranks.

>>17753700
Ok? Then stop saying that they were not present in primitive Christianity.

>>17753689
>can alienate Primitive Christianity from modern Christianity for some reason.
That's because Early Christianity WAS very, very different from modern Christianity. Ironically, Jehovah's Witnesses (despite being irritating little freaks) get closer to Early Christianity than most other groups.
>>17753710
When you just say "eucharist" it comes with massive baggage that wasn't universally present. Even the term "veneration", is there because "worship of saints" makes Catholics very nervous. Indeed, worship of angels made even Early Christians very nervous because of how similar angels were to minor pagan deities/divine servitors.
So no, Early Christians were not going about talking about "the eucharist" and "veneration" as one unit that everyone would agree on.
Therefore, they were not present as fixtures of Early Christianity.
And those aren't even fundamental beliefs that MODERN Christians agree on. The Early Christians would have shocked modern Christians, like how Paul seemed to be unaware that anyone ever MET Jesus outside of visions, and even outright says that the only way we even knew he died was secret codes in Scripture.

>>17753722
>Jehovah's Witnesses (despite being irritating little freaks) get closer to Early Christianity than most other groups.
Alright, that's it, I'm not taking you seriously anymore.

>>17753726
Well, they do, because they're freaks about the letter of what's in the NT. I never said they get it RIGHT. They still believe in a historical Jesus.
But they're closer than the Catholics, for example.

>>17753728
>They still believe in a historical Jesus
>Mythicist.
Into the trash you go.

>>17753734
Are you a Christian, by the way?

>>17753736
Nope.

Just not insane like mythicists.

>>17753742
Just making sure. I'm curious, do you have any counter-arguments? Or are you simply easily angered.

>>17753745
>I'm curious, do you have any counter-arguments?
Yeah, Jesus existed.

Simple.
>Just making sure.
I'm not sure what you're making "sure" about. It's not like someone's arguments are more or less valid because they're Christian or not.

>>17753751
>Yeah, Jesus existed.
I never said they didn't believe he existed. But it was not universally accepted that he was a historical person. That's mostly after the bottleneck, where you get Eusebius and Lactantius.
Like I said before, it's pretty obvious that all the Christians Paul was talking to didn't seem to believe in a historical Jesus either.
>I'm not sure what you're making "sure" about.
I'm making sure because if you were, it would prove OP's question "what beliefs of the Early Christians would shock modern Christians".

>>17753603 (OP)
>communal ownership and shared wealth
>church included a full meal
>church services in someone's house
>public confession of sins in front of the whole congregation
>kissing on the mouth as a greeting
>use of apocryphal works and extra-biblical texts.

>>17753676
>-Men having short hair and beards because natural law
It depends upon the customs of the society, but in the Roman Empire, yes, quite relatively short, for the most part. Outside of the Roman Empire, Christian men may well have had somewhat or wildly different lengths. Could you imagine early Christians in China, where men almost uniformly had long hair? That would have been the prevailing custom, there. Even in Judea and other Middle Eastern lands, somewhat longer hair than the Greco-Roman norm could have been seen.

>>17753676
This is some peak schizo shit

>>17753757
Whats obvious about it?

>>17753854
No it's not. He nailed it. About the only major thing he missed was charges of deicide against the jews. Also subordinism is just arianism

>>17753888
Well, Paul for one never defends his case of revelation over anyone else's case of eyewitness.
It's like this. Imagine theres a local hero who recently died. You show up in town and say "I talked to him over the phone, Im his best friend and he said that you guys should listen to what I have to say abput him and also give me money." The people in town will obviously say "Hey we knew him when he was alive, and he never told us any of that!" So you'd have to justify your phone-call-based claims against their eyewitness experiences with the guy.
Yet, Paul never once in all his writings does this. In fact, he is unaware of there having been disciples who knew Jesus on Earth. He never says Peter did, nor James (not a biological brother, but a cultic brother). Nor anyome else. He never mentions a biological family of Jesus either. Nor Pilate or the Sanhedrin killing him.
In fact, as far as his death goes, Paul literally says in the Corinthian creed "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, he died and was buried, and rose on the third day, APPEARING to the..." you know the rest.
The way Paul uses "according to" he's literally saying that "our source is the scriptures". As in, not human testimony. But instead, peshers.

>>17753603 (OP)
Well for example, the cross is white and planted upon a black field. Having a vision of the true cross was once considered a vital part of being one of his disciples.

>>17753676
>Proto-Orthodox
No such thing
>Trinitarian Subordinationism
>Premillennialism
>Synergism and Semi-Pelagianism
>Open theism
>Heaven just being earth after the resurrection
>Anti-Judaism/thinking the ritual laws of the torah were manmade and demonic
Wrong.