Didache?

[HiddenChalice]

Thoughts and opinions?

 

[ebedmelech]

You put it out there...start the ball...

 

[HiddenChalice]

I was hoping to hear from others about it.

Well, okay.

May God allow me to speak words of wisdom on this subject.

I had a read of this book. Although it was not included in the bible, I could not find fault with it. It contains valuable information drawn from the scriptures. Call it a Catechism of The Early Church. Though I cannot verify if it really was a Catechism of the Early Church or not.

 

[IndyEllis]

I've never heard that phrase, "May God allow me to speak words of wisdom on this subject."

Just curious... Where did you pick it up?

 

[Knee V]

The Didache is one of the earliest, if not THE earliest, "systematic theologies" that the church put together. It is one way for us to catch a glimpse of how the first recipients of the New Testament read it and understood it.

 

[HiddenChalice]

I've never heard that phrase, "May God allow me to speak words of wisdom on this subject."

It was a prayer to God, and I wanted to show humility, so that I don't count my own wisdom as anything.

 

[Tainted Scrolls]

This is not a phrase I was familiar with...Now I have more stuff to study as if I did not have enough already

 

[HiddenChalice]

If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

James 1:5

 

[cyberlizard]

a cracking book, it is a shame it is not in the bible. Saying that its style is so Jewish as to frighten most Christians. There are some really good texts on the Didache. Personally I am looking forward to the translation by First Fruits of Zion and the commentary they are doing to accompany it.



Steve

 

[IndyEllis]

It was a prayer to God, and I wanted to show humility, so that I don't count my own wisdom as anything.

Thanks for sharing that.

On the Didache, I think the first thing I'd say is that I don't have as rigid of concern on canon as many.

I think the Didache came close to making it in the canon. As knee pointed out, it's somewhat of an early attempt at systemizing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Didache is a perfectly good book, worth the read, and ediftying. Not Scripture, no, but definitely worth studying.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Steve Petersen]

Read it here: The Didache - The Complete Text

It seems to be a pretty good catechism form very early in church history.

One wonders whether it and/or the Apostolic Constitutions were used for the purposes of initiating converts into the faith.

 

[lesliedellow]

I was hoping to hear from others about it.

Well, okay.

May God allow me to speak words of wisdom on this subject.

I had a read of this book. Although it was not included in the bible, I could not find fault with it. It contains valuable information drawn from the scriptures. Call it a Catechism of The Early Church. Though I cannot verify if it really was a Catechism of the Early Church or not.

It was written in the late first or early second century. Not everything written by Christians in that period could be included in the New Testament, even if it was impeccably orthodox (and the Didache has no problems in that respect).

Didache means "teaching" and it was intended to be a crash course for new Christians.

 

[Knee V]

It was written in the late first or early second century. Not everything written by Christians in that period could be included in the New Testament, even if it was impeccably orthodox (and the Didache has no problems in that respect).

Didache means "teaching" and it was intended to be a crash course for new Christians.

The whole reason we have a New Testament is because the church preserved the writings that the Apostles wrote. It is essentially "the written legacy of the Apostles". Since the Didache was not written an Apostle, it would never have been part of the New Testament.

 

[lesliedellow]

The whole reason we have a New Testament is because the church preserved the writings that the Apostles wrote. It is essentially "the written legacy of the Apostles". Since the Didache was not written an Apostle, it would never have been part of the New Testament.

Then how did Hebrews manage to slip in? Its authorship has been doubted since the beginning of the third century, and today almost nobody believes it to be Pauline.

 

[Steve Petersen]

2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and others are not listed as canonical by Eusebius.

 

[Knee V]

Then how did Hebrews manage to slip in? Its authorship has been doubted since the beginning of the third century, and today almost nobody believes it to be Pauline.

Paul was only one of 83 Apostles.