The Didache: Proof of Deviation From Christ's Teachings by Apostolic Fathers

[chevyontheriver]

To repeat. I do not answer loaded questions.
If you do not understand what a loaded question is, please use google's search engine, or find a dictionary.

Good dodge.

The questions I understand here, are answered in this post.

That only referenced some other post which referenced some other post. It didn't come close to answering my question. Which I don't think you wanted to answer anyway. That question was basically 'where was your sort of Christianity hiding for centuries and centuries'?

I'll let you go now.

 

[CoreyD]

Good dodge.

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.
The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious.
Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.
Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife. This informal fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question, which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.​

Defense

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic.
However, the asker may respond to a challenge by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.​

Right on cue.

That only referenced some other post which referenced some other post. It didn't come close to answering my question.

The answer is in the post, along with the link... just one link
It answers the question.
If you don't have the time to read the post, you probably don't want the answer.

Which I don't think you wanted to answer anyway.

Pardon me?
I pointed you to the answer. The poster before you saw the answer... I believe, so I did not hear a complaint from them.

Your son comes to you, and asks for juice.
Go take some from the fridge son.
Dad. You just don't want to give me any juice.

Excuse me?

That question was basically 'where was your sort of Christianity hiding for centuries and centuries'?

This is another loaded question, but the answer I provided still gives you what you are searching for... If you really are searching for an answer.
A loaded question is ... used as a rhetorical tool...

I'll let you go now.

I'm not going anywhere.
However, you are free to go whenever you are ready.

 

[chevyontheriver]

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.
The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious.
Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.
Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife. This informal fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question, which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.​

Defense

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic.
However, the asker may respond to a challenge by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.​

Right on cue.

I'm glad I could be so punctual.

The answer is in the post, along with the link... just one link
It answers the question.
If you don't have the time to read the post, you probably don't want the answer.


Pardon me?
I pointed you to the answer. The poster before you saw the answer... I believe, so I did not hear a complaint from them.

Your son comes to you, and asks for juice.
Go take some from the fridge son.
Dad. You just don't want to give me any juice.

Excuse me?

You answered some other question but not mine. But thanks for the verbiage.

This is another loaded question, but the answer I provided still gives you what you are searching for... If you really are searching for an answer.
A loaded question is ... used as a rhetorical tool...

You don't have an answer. OK.

I'm not going anywhere.
However, you are free to go whenever you are ready.

I'm quite ready. Bye.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I think he's trying to say that the Didache and the Catholic Church are on one side (presumably with the Orthodox) and the Bible and the 'True Believers (TM) are on the other side. I think it's a way of invalidating all of the Church Fathers from the very first ones. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Dude the Chruch Fathers were taught by the Apostles.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Dude the Church Fathers were taught by the Apostles.

I know that. But that's NOT the point of the OP.

 

[The Liturgist]

Regarding the OP, what teachings of Jesus Christ can be understood from 0 to 180 degrees?

Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), fasting, but joyously, the saying of the Lord’s Prayer, the celebration of Holy Communion as instructed in 1 Corinthians 11 and the synoptic Gospels, assembly on the day of the resurrection, which we see in Acts when the Eleven and St. Matthias received the Holy Spirit, and so on.

This is of course assuming you regard the Apostles and Evangelists and the 27 books of the New Testament canon adopted in the fourth century as inspired sources of revelations, and reject certain other texts not included therein, such as the edited version of the Gospel of Luke known as the Gospel of Marcion, the Pistis Sophia, and other Docetic and Gnostic texts.

 

[CoreyD]

Dude the Chruch Fathers were taught by the Apostles.

That is true Daniel.
So were these - 2 Corinthians 11:12, 13; Acts 20:30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2:1
Do you see what I am saying, Daniel.
I know you mean well buddy, but let me ask you this:
Why are you eager to accept teachings that deviated... they clearly are different from what Jesus and his apostles left us in the NT?

If I said something different from what is written in scripture, you'd have my head, wouldn't you?
In fact, every Catholic posting in this thread would be at my throat, telling me how I am teaching heresy.
Why do you think they are so eager to accept... mind you... 1) an anonymous document, that 2) came after the apostles were all gone, and 3) implements changes from the writings, which God said were complete, though a faithful apostle - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work?

I'll like to hear from you... not in behalf of anyone, but speak for yourself Daniel. Why?

 

[CoreyD]

Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), fasting, but joyously, the saying of the Lord’s Prayer, the celebration of Holy Communion as instructed in 1 Corinthians 11 and the synoptic Gospels, assembly on the day of the resurrection, which we see in Acts when the Eleven and St. Matthias received the Holy Spirit, and so on.

This is of course assuming you regard the Apostles and Evangelists and the 27 books of the New Testament canon adopted in the fourth century as inspired sources of revelations, and reject certain other texts not included therein, such as the edited version of the Gospel of Luke known as the Gospel of Marcion, the Pistis Sophia, and other Docetic and Gnostic texts.

Thanks for the list.
Let's take the first - Baptism.
Please give me the various understandings from 0 to 180 degrees, of the teaching of Baptism, by Jesus and the apostles.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for the list.
Let's take the first - Baptism.
Please give me the various understandings from 0 to 180 degrees, of the teaching of Baptism, by Jesus and the apostles

If I did that, the result would be about a 1,500 word document, at least, since there are so many heterodoxies concerning baptism, and in my experience when I do that people complain about the length of my reply.

And to really understand at a deep level every nuance of sacramental theology concerning baptism and also the history of baptism in the Christian church, that would take a seminary course. So I can do the former, if you really want it, although probably not today, but for the latter, all I can do is offer you a list of books to read as an introduction. This is where it helps to have a bachelor’s in theology and an MDiv.

However, there is only one scriptural formula at baptism used by everyone from Southern Baptists to the Assyrian Church of the East, to Presbyterians to non-denominational evangelicals, and that is Matthew 28:19, since if you baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, since the former is inclusive of the latter, whereas the latter is not inclusive of the former, and Matthew 28:19 is the more specific scripture.

Thus far the only person I’ve encountered on CF.com who disagreed with this also rejected the validity of Matthew 28:19, which is one of the most well-attested verses in the Gospels.* In addition not baptizing using the Trinitarian formula is associated with the neo-Sabellian Oneness Pentecostals, whose beliefs are not compatible with the CF.com Statement of Faith and who are generally regarded to be an heretical cult.

*Interestingly, as you may know, Mark 16:10-16,, known as the Longer Ending, is of disputed authenticity since the oldest manuscripts of Mark seem to lack it; I am indifferent on the matter, but I would also say that even if one accepts it, it does not change the scenario vis a vis the baptismal formula, and the views of the Appalachian Snake Handling Pentecostals are, in my view, a misguided interpretation of it. Given that snake bites do occur among those congregations, which could have tragic medical outcomes (I have heard, second hand, of one case requiring a limb amputation; I don’t know if anyone has died but its quite possible given these are venomous snakes), it seems particularly lamentable that they occur among the only pericope of a canonical Gospel widely regarded as spurious. Of course it should also be noted that the adultery pericope in the Gospel of John is widely regarded to be an interpolation, from another now-lost document, but its authenticity has not been widely questioned. As for where it came from, that would take us down an entire rabbit hole of missing and apocryphal texts, which is an interesting rabbit hole, but probably not what you want.

 

[CoreyD]

If I did that, the result would be about a 1,500 word document, at least, since there are so many heterodoxies concerning baptism, and in my experience when I do that people complain about the length of my reply.

And to really understand at a deep level every nuance of sacramental theology concerning baptism and also the history of baptism in the Christian church, that would take a seminary course. So I can do the former, if you really want it, although probably not today, but for the latter, all I can do is offer you a list of books to read as an introduction. This is where it helps to have a bachelor’s in theology and an MDiv.

However, there is only one scriptural formula at baptism used by everyone from Southern Baptists to the Assyrian Church of the East, to Presbyterians to non-denominational evangelicals, and that is Matthew 28:19, since if you baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, since the former is inclusive of the latter, whereas the latter is not inclusive of the former, and Matthew 28:19 is the more specific scripture.

Thus far the only person I’ve encountered on CF.com who disagreed with this also rejected the validity of Matthew 28:19, which is one of the most well-attested verses in the Gospels.* In addition not baptizing using the Trinitarian formula is associated with the neo-Sabellian Oneness Pentecostals, whose beliefs are not compatible with the CF.com Statement of Faith and who are generally regarded to be an heretical cult.

*Interestingly, as you may know, Mark 16:10-16,, known as the Longer Ending, is of disputed authenticity since the oldest manuscripts of Mark seem to lack it; I am indifferent on the matter, but I would also say that even if one accepts it, it does not change the scenario vis a vis the baptismal formula, and the views of the Appalachian Snake Handling Pentecostals are, in my view, a misguided interpretation of it. Given that snake bites do occur among those congregations, which could have tragic medical outcomes (I have heard, second hand, of one case requiring a limb amputation; I don’t know if anyone has died but its quite possible given these are venomous snakes), it seems particularly lamentable that they occur among the only pericope of a canonical Gospel widely regarded as spurious. Of course it should also be noted that the adultery pericope in the Gospel of John is widely regarded to be an interpolation, from another now-lost document, but its authenticity has not been widely questioned. As for where it came from, that would take us down an entire rabbit hole of missing and apocryphal texts, which is an interesting rabbit hole, but probably not what you want.

I believe you ran in a direction that's not in line with the OP.
The OP does not zero in on whether persons baptize people three times - that is, dip them under water, three times, as opposed to one.
The OP simply considers baptism - what it is.
The teaching of Jesus and his apostles is to baptize. Not Effuse.
The change of Jesus' and the apostles' teaching on this has been accepted by most mainstream denominations, so that is a "180 degree understanding" of some, which is not in keeping with Jesus' and the apostles' teachings.

What we should consider though, which is most important, is that because someone adopts a man made doctrine, and calls it an understanding of Jesus' teaching, that does not make it such.
It's an invalidating of the word, and claiming that no one can understand Jesus' teachings, because they can be... how many did you say?

 

[concretecamper]

What we should consider though, which is most important, is that because someone adopts a man made doctrine, and calls it an understanding of Jesus' teaching, that does not make it such.

He that hears you, hear Me. He that rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent me.

It's an invalidating of the word, and claiming that no one can understand Jesus' teachings, because they can be... how many did you say?

You really mean it's invalidating YOUR interpretation of His Word.

If you could provide a Scripture passage that tells us all the Scripture contains all that the information a Christian needs, now is the time to post it. But I know Scripture doesn't claim that, but I hope you try so we can all show you how off base your posts are.

 

[BobRyan]

That even the very first of the sub-apostolic Church Fathers were full of heresy and had abandoned the faith of the NT? In the text of the Didache itself.

Or maybe that Paul himself (and other NT authors) said this in the lead up to those events in the second century...

Acts 20:
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears

Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

1 Tim 1:
3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. 6 Some people have strayed from these things and have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

3 John 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

!! instead of the bad guys losing - they in fact were kicking the good guys out of church. BEFORE the 2nd century!!

2 Cor 11:12 But what I am doing I will also continue to do, so that I may eliminate the opportunity from those who want an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

!! False Apostles! really??

2 Thess 2: Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first..."

What "apostasy"?? -- hmm -- how about the one you say can not exist??

 

[tall73]

Church Organization
The local leadership consists of bishops and deacons, and they seem to be taking the place of the itinerant ministry.
...

Church Organization
Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 5:41, 42; Acts 20:20, 21; 2 Timothy 4:2-5

Could you please clarify a couple of things?

• Why are you quoting from a characterization of the text, rather than the text itself?
• And are you objecting to bishops and deacons, or just to less emphasis on traveling evangelism?

Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every city.

Titus 1:5-9 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (NKJV)​

 

[chevyontheriver]

Or maybe that Paul himself (and other NT authors) said this in the lead up to those events in the second century...

Acts 20:
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears

Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

1 Tim 1:
3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. 6 Some people have strayed from these things and have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

3 John 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

!! instead of the bad guys losing - they in fact were kicking the good guys out of church. BEFORE the 2nd century!!

2 Cor 11:12 But what I am doing I will also continue to do, so that I may eliminate the opportunity from those who want an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

!! False Apostles! really??

2 Thess 2: Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first..."

What "apostasy"?? -- hmm -- how about the one you say can not exist??

If you were familiar with the Fathers you might know that they were vigilant against heresies. This thread presumes the Fathers were from the beginning all heretics. All of them. But it’s done with a real deficit of information about them. The Fathers were heretic hunters, and Ignatius of Lyon was one of the prime examples. I wonder what he would say about the theology of the one here claiming the Fathers were all heretics?

 

[CoreyD]

He that hears you, hear Me. He that rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent me.

You really mean it's invalidating YOUR interpretation of His Word.

You would need to point out where what I said is my "interpretation of His Word", as opposed to the word.

If you could provide a Scripture passage that tells us all the Scripture contains all that the information a Christian needs, now is the time to post it. But I know Scripture doesn't claim that, but I hope you try so we can all show you how off base your posts are.

A scripture passage that tells us "all that the information a Christian needs" is 2 Timothy 3:14-17

 

[concretecamper]

You would need to point out where what I said is my "interpretation of His Word", as opposed to the word.


A scripture passage that tells us "all that the information a Christian needs" is 2 Timothy 3:14-17

The scripture Timothy knew from his youth is the Tanakh, that is what Paul is referencing.

Are you arguing that Christians don't need the new Testament?

 

[tall73]

The Didache is not long. Perhaps it would be helpful to go through the whole text and point out differences you see. That might be more productive than looking at second-hand characterizations of the text.

For instance,

No reference to avoiding Jewish Christians in the NT - esp since all the Apostles were Jewish Christians

I found that last one quite interesting. I was like segregation in the body?

I don't think it is likely that the text is saying to avoid "Jewish Christians." In fact, the reference to the preparation day in the same sentence referenced does not suggest the sort of disapproval we have of Jewish Christians keeping the law as we see in Justin Martyr, or more forcefully in Chrysostom at a later time.

The description of the "hypocrites" and the relating of the Lord's prayer suggest the ones they are not to imitate are the pharisees:

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation . Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:​

​

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.​

​

Pray this three times each day​

​

Luke 18 shows the Pharisee in Jesus' parable fasting twice a week:

​

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ (NKJV)​

​

The context of the Lord's prayer included reference to the hypocrites, which did not seem to be related to "Jewish Christians":

Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.​

8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:​

Our Father in heaven,​

Hallowed be Your name.​

10 Your kingdom come.​

Your will be done​

On earth as it is in heaven.​

11 Give us this day our daily bread.​

12 And forgive us our debts,​

As we forgive our debtors.​

13 And do not lead us into temptation,​

But deliver us from the evil one.​

For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. (NKJV)​

​

See also:

​

Matthew 23:13-14 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. (NKJV)​

​

I think there is still a discussion to be had on

• Fasting on two different days than the pharisees
• Praying the Lord's prayer three times a day

in regards to the biblical statements. But by going through the actual text and comparing it to the text of Scripture you would at least be eliminating the middle-man of the scholar's statements, drawn from a curated source.

​

​

 

[CoreyD]

Could you please clarify a couple of things?

• Why are you quoting from a characterization of the text, rather than the text itself?

I didn't figure it made a difference, since the scholars usually quote from what is there, or give an opinion on what they read.
However, it is always best to use the source, so I appreciate that. Thanks.

Didache: Complete Text

Spoiler: Excerpt

Chapter One
The way of life is this: first, you should love God, who made you; secondly, love your neighbor as yourself; and whatever things you do not desire to be done to you, do not do them to someone else.

Chapter Two
And this is the second commandment of the teaching: you shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt children, nor practice sexual deviation; you shall not steal; nor practice calling on spiritual guides; nor use sorcery; you shall not procure an abortion, nor practice infanticide; you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Chapter Seven
And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able. And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before.

Chapter Eight
And let not your fasts be with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you fast Wednesdays and Fridays. Do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord commanded in His gospel. Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed is Your name, Your kingdom come and Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us our daily bread for today and forgive our debts as we forgive those who owe us. Please do not lead us into a test, but deliver us from the evil one. For You have the power and the glory forever. Pray like this three times a day.

Chapter Ten
After you are filled, give thanks like this: We thank you, Holy Father, for Your Holy name which you made to dwell in our hearts, and for knowledge and faith and immortality as You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever. You, Lord Almighty, created all things to show forth Your name. You give both food and drink to man to enjoy, and everlasting life through Your Servant. Above all, we thank You because You are mighty. Glory to You forever. Remember Lord, Your Church, to deliver her from all evil and mature her in Your love. And gather her from the four winds, separated into Your kingdom which You have made for her, because You have the power and glory forever. Let grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha (Lord come). Amen Allow the prophets now to give thanks as they desire.

Chapter Eleven
Whoever, therefore, who comes and teaches you all these things mentioned, receive him. But if the one teaching changes what has been taught to another teaching in order to destroy these things, do not listen to him. However, if his motive is to add righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as you would the Lord.

Thanks very much.
I'm glad you mentioned this.
This makes it doubly clear that this is not from any of Jesus faithful followers.
Just reading this, one can clearly see, it takes the same form of other later works, like the Gospel of Thomas - repeating some things that have been written in the scriptures, which is redundant, and adding.

Chapter One

The way of life is this: first, you should love God, who made you; secondly, love your neighbor as yourself; and whatever things you do not desire to be done to you, do not do them to someone else.

Why did they not just say, the Lord commanded us to love God, and neighbor, and gave us the Golden Rule?
Why are they making it about them... as though they are trying to validate their authority?

They remind me of those ones Paul was contending with.
2 Corinthians 11:12, 13
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

This pattern is seen throughout the document.
You may feel free to read these for yourself.
Some are humorous, as well.
Like...
Chapter Two

And this is the second commandment of the teaching: you shall not kill;

Could you imagine one of the twelve saying 'You should nor kill"? Really?

Exodus 20:13 Interlinear: 'Thou dost not murder.

There is also this one.
Chapter Seven

And concerning baptism, in this manner baptize: when you have gone over these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, baptize in other water. If you are not able to use cold water, use warm. And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If you are not able to use cold water, use warm water, and if you have neither cold nor warm water, pour water on the head three times...
That's quite informative, isn't it. Makes one wonder what kind of water they used.

Here is another...
Chapter Eight

And let not your fasts be with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you fast Wednesdays and Fridays. Do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord commanded in His gospel. Pray like this: Our Father... Pray like this three times a day.

The hypocrites fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but the righteous fast Wednesdays and Fridays?
How do the hypocrites pray? Is it not like this...
Matthew 6:7, 8
7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.
8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

Does that give the impression that Jesus wanted his followers to repeat prayers over and over again, or pray from the heart?

There is more.
Chapter Ten

After you are filled, give thanks like this: We thank you, Holy Father, for Your Holy name which you made to dwell in our hearts, and for knowledge and faith and immortality as You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever. ...Maranatha (Lord come). Amen Allow the prophets now to give thanks as they desire.

Why do you pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, if they don't. and do you say this prayer?
Why are they giving you words to pray as a recitation, and yet Jesus said not to do this, but encouraged praying to your father in private, obviously about things that concern you, since he knows what things you need, before you ask?

Finally... although this isn't all...
Chapter Eleven

Whoever, therefore, who comes and teaches you all these things mentioned, receive him. But if the one teaching changes what has been taught to another teaching in order to destroy these things, do not listen to him. However, if his motive is to add righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as you would the Lord.

This sound like a code of law, for the hierarchy.
In other words, the identifying mark of the “super-apostles”. 2 Corinthians 12:11
They clearly rose up in the congregation, after the apostles were all gone, and they created their "document of faith".

Is it any wonder it's anonymous.

• And are you objecting to bishops and deacons, or just to less emphasis on traveling evangelism?

Chapter Fifteen

Appoint for yourselves, therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord: gentle men, not lovers of money, true and approved. For they minister also to you the ministry of prophets and teachers. Therefore, do not despise them, for they are to be honored among you along with the prophets and teachers.

Of course, they do not mention less emphasis on traveling evangelism, but they do say this:

And do not let anyone speak to a person who is unloving to his neighbor, nor let him hear a word from you, until he repents.

I don't know if scholars interpreted that to mean, persons must become part of the church, or attend, in order to receive the word.

However, history shows that the itinerant ministry became "history", until the reformation, and Methodism.
History
Early first century New Testament figures such as John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul were known for extensively traveling and preaching to unreached people groups in the Middle East and Europe, although often staying for longer periods than modern itinerant evangelists.

Starting in the eighteenth century, the Methodists were known for sending out itinerant preachers known as circuit riders to share the message. The 'Itinerancy' is denoted as one of the "chief peculiar usages" of classic Methodism, along with practices such as class meetings and watchnight services.

Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every city.

Titus 1:5-9 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (NKJV)​

Yes. I am not contending that.
Thank you.

 

[CoreyD]

The Didache is not long. Perhaps it would be helpful to go through the whole text and point out differences you see. That might be more productive than looking at second-hand characterizations of the text.

For instance,





I don't think it is likely that the text is saying to avoid "Jewish Christians." In fact, the reference to the preparation day in the same sentence referenced does not suggest the sort of disapproval we have of Jewish Christians keeping the law as we see in Justin Martyr, or more forcefully in Chrysostom at a later time.

The description of the "hypocrites" and the relating of the Lord's prayer suggest the ones they are not to imitate are the pharisees:

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation . Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:​

​

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.​

​

Pray this three times each day​

​

Luke 18 shows the Pharisee in Jesus' parable fasting twice a week:

​

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ (NKJV)​

​

The context of the Lord's prayer included reference to the hypocrites, which did not seem to be related to "Jewish Christians":

Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.​

8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:​

Our Father in heaven,​

Hallowed be Your name.​

10 Your kingdom come.​

Your will be done​

On earth as it is in heaven.​

11 Give us this day our daily bread.​

12 And forgive us our debts,​

As we forgive our debtors.​

13 And do not lead us into temptation,​

But deliver us from the evil one.​

For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. (NKJV)​

​

See also:

​

Matthew 23:13-14 13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. (NKJV)​

​

I think there is still a discussion to be had on

• Fasting on two different days than the pharisees
• Praying the Lord's prayer three times a day

in regards to the biblical statements. But by going through the actual text and comparing it to the text of Scripture you would at least be eliminating the middle-man of the scholar's statements, drawn from a curated source.

​

​

Good points.
I appreciate this.
Is this post better?

 

[BNR32FAN]

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.
The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious.
Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.
Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife. This informal fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question, which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.​

Defense

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic.
However, the asker may respond to a challenge by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.​

Right on cue.


The answer is in the post, along with the link... just one link
It answers the question.
If you don't have the time to read the post, you probably don't want the answer.


Pardon me?
I pointed you to the answer. The poster before you saw the answer... I believe, so I did not hear a complaint from them.

Your son comes to you, and asks for juice.
Go take some from the fridge son.
Dad. You just don't want to give me any juice.

Excuse me?


This is another loaded question, but the answer I provided still gives you what you are searching for... If you really are searching for an answer.
A loaded question is ... used as a rhetorical tool...


I'm not going anywhere.
However, you are free to go whenever you are ready.

The question seems obvious to me, can you provide any evidence of your theology existing before the 16th century other than the scriptures?