Since the thread has now been moved to St Justin Martyr's, where we do allow debate, it might be an idea to remove this post
It's not that they conflict, but that looking at the history there is a clear development of theology often drawing more on pagan philosophers and practical concerns than any indication of an apostolic succession of bishops. Ultimately, the transmission of the church is a matter of faith but it seems to me there is too much history that's necessary to deny to uphold the notion of an unbroken church transmission outside of the Scripture itself. I'm not sure what specific statements you're refering to in the Didache, though my statement is simply that there was a development of sacramental theology and it's been my experience that generally the things people see in the early documents tends to be a reading later developments into texts rather than them actually being present. Though I will say I'm not really interested in debating the issue because there is more faith in believing the EO is the true church than analysis, so I am simply stating my conclusions from reading the early church literature and outside historical sources.
Not necessarily, sure, but all of the markers of increasing sophistication are present in the written record. But again, I'm simply giving you my conclusion not seeking to persuade you as the issue appears to me to be more strictly a matter of faith than rational analysis.
I wouldn't say there's increasing sophistication in Genesis, but a consistent theology throughout the Pentateuch and different perspectives in books like Chronicles or Joshua-2 Kings. The notion that there has been a theology handed down from the apostles doesn't really square with the historical picture where individuals argued various points until a tradition emerged. My conclusion is that the church is a theological development borne of practical considerations, not something that originated with the apostles and was handed down from there. If the claim of apostolic transmission were true the increasing sophistication would indicate a tampering or corrupting of the original message.
Yeah, and I don't see an increasing sophistication across the OT. It also is distinctly different to say that there are theological developments across the inspired canon and another thing entirely to see further developments after the apostolic teachings. Increasing "sophistication" building on the apostolic teachings is, in fact, syncretism.
The apostolic tradition handed down had not had to face the various heresies that cropped up, and each time heresy threatened to tear the Church apart, the articulation of the apostolic tradition was refined to exclude the heretical interpretations. That isn't development of tradition, it is defense of tradition.
That's one way to frame it, but the development took place more than simply in regard to heresies and even what the notion of "apostolic tradition" means has shifted over the course of history as the first mention in Irenaeus is to a well known public teaching, which likely refers to what came to be canonized as the NT. Modern notions of apostolic tradition sound more like the gnostic enemies Irenaeus was combatting than understanding the words with the relevant historical context in mind.
