Of course there was leadership, I've said that several times. But what there was not was a system of ordained clergy who were somehow empowered to speak while others should hold their tongues (or persons empowered to tell people what the scriptures mean). And given the jewish tradition of dialog between all (where each is charged to study and understand and not to blindly accept another's interpretation), and the tradition of everyone speaking and opining in the synagogue and at public gatherings, I think it's only logical that that same tradition would be imported into the early christian church. As Jesus said, wherever two or three are gathered in my name..., no formalistic practices per se; these developed over time.don't know how to read Acts (and more particularly Paul's letters which preceded the gospels and Acts in date of writing and conclude that there was no leadership in the early Christian church.
Now yes, there was the temple as well in Judaism, but much of the jewish tradition is pharisaic and did not involve priests and animal sacrifices and money changers; it was found in the synagogues and homes, and where the faithful gathered to share and pray. Face it, the temple was destroyed long ago, but Judaism has still flourished, precisely because it is rooted in these traditions and not the hierarchical structures.
So, were there leaders in the early church? Certainly. did they exert authority over early Christians? Not as such; they more had significant influence than authority; that sort of system developed slowly, and a church was founded that claimed (and still claims) it alone holds the keys to the kingdom, the only way to salvation.
