The Didache

[Subduction Zone]

I think it just depends. For an example, baptism by immersion is what protestants preach (usually) - if it is possible to be fully baptized.

Perhaps the issue is more, "no one has ever asked about the aspects of Didache?"

In other words, with so much teach on, I wouldn't take a time and expound of "What I agree with and disagree with on the Didache. The subject would probably be better expounded on a university class on the history of Christianity.

Really? I am not so sure about that. Quite a few faiths do infant baptism , which is usually just a sprinkling of water. The Baptists tend to do the whole immersion and probably most nondenominational sects. But Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others seem to think that just a little dab'll do ya. Here is an article that indicates that the norm for Protestants is a mere sprinkle:

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion? Mode of Baptism at Harvest - Harvest Community Church (PCA)

Mode of Baptism at Harvest Community Church By Pastor Jacob Gerber Adopted by the Session of Harvest Community Church on December 16, 2020 Among Bible-believing Protestant Christians, debates about baptism often focus on the proper recipients of baptism. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and...

harvestpca.org

 

[Kenny]

Really? I am not so sure about that. Quite a few faiths do infant baptism , which is usually just a sprinkling of water. The Baptists tend to do the whole immersion and probably most nondenominational sects. But Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others seem to think that just a little dab'll do ya. Here is an article that indicates that the norm for Protestants is a mere sprinkle:

Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion? Mode of Baptism at Harvest - Harvest Community Church (PCA)

Mode of Baptism at Harvest Community Church By Pastor Jacob Gerber Adopted by the Session of Harvest Community Church on December 16, 2020 Among Bible-believing Protestant Christians, debates about baptism often focus on the proper recipients of baptism. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and...

harvestpca.org

You are right about those specific ones. I guess I was thinking along the lines of Church of God, Disciples of Christ, Assemblies of God, Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, Foursquare, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Baptist, Anabaptist, Adventists and others.

I'm pretty sure the Didache addressed infant baptism, but don't quote me on that.

But if there is no water, a little dab will do ya Are you interested?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right about those specific ones. I guess I was thinking along the lines of Church of God, Disciples of Christ, Assemblies of God, Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, Foursquare, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Baptist, Anabaptist, Adventists and others.

I'm pretty sure the Didache addressed infant baptism, but don't quote me on that.

But if there is no water, a little dab will do ya Are you interested?

Been there done that bought the t-shirt.

And I was looking up the Didache and saw that the rite of baptism was covered but I have not seen a copy of the work. Perhaps a suggestion to the OP?

 

[Treks]

@Rival @Wandering Monk

Right, I found the bit about fasting. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this language. "8 Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays."

 

[Kenny]

@Rival @Wandering Monk

Right, I found the bit about fasting. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this language. "8 Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays."

I think that is a good example as to why it wasn't received as God breathed. Gospels or the Epistles don't mention anything about days for fasting other than you should fast.

Logically, why would one day make one a hypocrite but the other day make on righteous? Just doesn't mesh.

 

[Clear]

Hi @IndigoChild5559 , @Kenny , @Rival , etc.

1) Regarding IndigoChild5559s' claim that hebrews and Israelites means the same as the word "Jews".

@IndigoChild5559 claims : “Your posts are far too difficult to reply to…”
I agree that you are having a very difficult time replying to my posts regarding the historical meaning of the word “Jew”. I also agree that you should disengage from this specific conversational topic. I understand as do discerning readers. You do not need to read my posts that disagree with your theory since they are written for other readers as much as for you.

I do NOT want to discourage you from creating meaning and theories about what early religion was like. Creating meaning and making theories is a GOOD thing. Still all historical theories tend to be tentative, pending more and better data. I DO like many of your thoughts. For example :



2) Religionists (both Jews and Christians generally) are not historians (nor are they required to be) and this means they do not know details of the history of religion or religious texts.
@IndigoChild5559 said : “Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. “

While this is an overgeneralization, I think it is “generally” correct. Protestants are, generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian literature while Jews are generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian historical literature and do not understand it’s import and relationship to authentic early religion. This same thing can be said of Jews and Catholics as well.

Both the “modern” western Othodox Rabbanate Jews and “modern” Western Christians tend to have very little concept of the early literature outside of their relatively modern, “western” bibles and know very little about eastern bibles or ancient biblical text or how early “Jewish” or “Christian” bibles differed and still differ from their own. For example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Ethiopia, their church has 81 books in their larger eastern canon. They still include an Enoch, a Jubilees, Barnabas, etc while the protestants in the west typically have 66 books in their bible and are completely unaware of other bibles.

Bibles also differ, not only geographically, but in various time periods.

4th Century Codex Sinaiticus included Hermas and barnabas. So, the bible one grows up with is somewhat arbitrary according to time and place. The same examples can be given of Jewish texts, as the Masoretes tells us.


3) Non-historian religionists often tend to view their current religion and it's text as unchanging and free of error
People often tend to assume their biblical text (whatever version is their preferred version) is unchanged and free of errors when all large ancient biblical texts that we know of have errors and changes from their original text. For example, the Jewish Masoretes give us examples of many changes they made to the Masoretic Bible (the official bible of Orthodox Rabbinic Jews) and even the reasons they made changes to the biblical text. The Christians, on the other hand, often make the exact same error and assume the New Testament (and also often the Old Testament as well) are unchanged and without error.

In fact, many urban myths have sprung up to try to bolster such views. Sometimes you will hear both Jews AND Christians say the various ancient biblical texts (such as the dead sea scroll version) “have been compared to the modern bible” and “they are the same” when obviously they are quite different in many instances.

I think it is typical for modern Jews and Christians to be provincial in that they assume their modern versions of their religions are the way “Judaism” and “Christianity” always were (respectively).



3) A common tendency is to over-generalize regarding early Judeo-Christian religion history and it's texts

IndigoChild5559 said regarding Protestants : “They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.”

While I agree with you that early Jewish and Christian religion was different than the modern, "western" Judaism and Christianity, your statement over-generalizes on specific points. For example, it is quite unclear regarding “Real Prescence”, “baptism of infants”, salvation by baptism alone (if that is what you meant by “salvific baptism”).

Early Interpretations differed regarding these issues and the early texts as a genre are helpful in that they can describe what various Christians (and Jews) believed and how they interpreted the biblical text they had

I DO agree with you regarding authority of Bishops of the various individual Churches.


In any case, I will aways try to admit agreement when I think you are correct and I think you often have good, solid, insights and hope you continue trying to find historical meaning and theories. I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
σιφισεω

 

[IndigoChild5559]

that isn't quite how it goes. I've read other books not in the Bible... it is more like "since they don't line up with accepted books, we know that it is subject to error." We see historical value but not living value.

Kenny, if you have read other historical christian books, I commend you. But you must know that yu are highly unusual.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi @IndigoChild5559 , @Kenny , @Rival , etc.

1) Regarding IndigoChild5559s' claim that hebrews and Israelites means the same as the word "Jews".

@IndigoChild5559 claims : “Your posts are far too difficult to reply to…”
I agree that you are having a very difficult time replying to my posts regarding the historical meaning of the word “Jew”. I also agree that you should disengage from this specific conversational topic. I understand as do discerning readers. You do not need to read my posts that disagree with your theory since they are written for other readers as much as for you.

I do NOT want to discourage you from creating meaning and theories about what early religion was like. Creating meaning and making theories is a GOOD thing. Still all historical theories tend to be tentative, pending more and better data. I DO like many of your thoughts. For example :



2) Religionists (both Jews and Christians generally) are not historians (nor are they required to be) and this means they do not know details of the history of religion or religious texts.
@IndigoChild5559 said : “Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. “

While this is an overgeneralization, I think it is “generally” correct. Protestants are, generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian literature while Jews are generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian historical literature and do not understand it’s import and relationship to authentic early religion. This same thing can be said of Jews and Catholics as well.

Both the “modern” western Othodox Rabbanate Jews and “modern” Western Christians tend to have very little concept of the early literature outside of their relatively modern, “western” bibles and know very little about eastern bibles or ancient biblical text or how early “Jewish” or “Christian” bibles differed and still differ from their own. For example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Ethiopia, their church has 81 books in their larger eastern canon. They still include an Enoch, a Jubilees, Barnabas, etc while the protestants in the west typically have 66 books in their bible and are completely unaware of other bibles.

Bibles also differ, not only geographically, but in various time periods.

4th Century Codex Sinaiticus included Hermas and barnabas. So, the bible one grows up with is somewhat arbitrary according to time and place. The same examples can be given of Jewish texts, as the Masoretes tells us.


3) Non-historian religionists often tend to view their current religion and it's text as unchanging and free of error
People often tend to assume their biblical text (whatever version is their preferred version) is unchanged and free of errors when all large ancient biblical texts that we know of have errors and changes from their original text. For example, the Jewish Masoretes give us examples of many changes they made to the Masoretic Bible (the official bible of Orthodox Rabbinic Jews) and even the reasons they made changes to the biblical text. The Christians, on the other hand, often make the exact same error and assume the New Testament (and also often the Old Testament as well) are unchanged and without error.

In fact, many urban myths have sprung up to try to bolster such views. Sometimes you will hear both Jews AND Christians say the various ancient biblical texts (such as the dead sea scroll version) “have been compared to the modern bible” and “they are the same” when obviously they are quite different in many instances.

I think it is typical for modern Jews and Christians to be provincial in that they assume their modern versions of their religions are the way “Judaism” and “Christianity” always were (respectively).



3) A common tendency is to over-generalize regarding early Judeo-Christian religion history and it's texts

IndigoChild5559 said regarding Protestants : “They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.”

While I agree with you that early Jewish and Christian religion was different than the modern, "western" Judaism and Christianity, your statement over-generalizes on specific points. For example, it is quite unclear regarding “Real Prescence”, “baptism of infants”, salvation by baptism alone (if that is what is meant by “salvific baptism”.

Early Interpretations differed regarding these issues and the early texts as a genre are helpful in that they can describe what various Christians (and Jews) believed and how they interpreted the biblical text they had

I DO agree with you regarding authority of Bishops of the various individual Churches.


In any case, I will aways try to admit agreement when I think you are correct and I think you often have good, solid, insights and hope you continue trying to find historical meaning and theories. I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
σιφισεω

Please do not continue to address things to me. I have explained to you twice why I do not wish to converse with you. I wish you the best.

 

[Rival]

@Rival @Wandering Monk

Right, I found the bit about fasting. Personally, I'm not comfortable with this language. "8 Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays."

I think that is a good example as to why it wasn't received as God breathed. Gospels or the Epistles don't mention anything about days for fasting other than you should fast.

Logically, why would one day make one a hypocrite but the other day make on righteous? Just doesn't mesh.

This kind of language is used in the Gospels all the time. John and Jesus use it frequently. Much of the Didache is copied from Matthew:
'And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'

 

[Kenny]

This kind of language is used in the Gospels all the time. John and Jesus use it frequently. Much of the Didache is copied from Matthew:
'And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.'

That is a very good quote. Did you know notice that specific days weren't mentioned? The hypocrisy wasn't in the days but rather in the outward expression of a fast - it wasn't a fast twards God but unto the view of men to give an appearance of spirituality towards men

 

[Rival]

That is a very good quote. Did you know notice that specific days weren't mentioned? The hypocrisy wasn't in the days but rather in the outward expression of a fast - it wasn't a fast twards God but unto the view of men to give an appearance of spirituality towards men

Yes, but regardless the Didache is using the same language. It quotes Matthew a lot, so I think it's fair to say they had a specific interpretation going on. It's difficult not to see the parallel here, so I don't think the Didache is being quite as harsh as we read it.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, but regardless the Didache is using the same language. It quotes Matthew a lot, so I think it's fair to say they had a specific interpretation going on. It's difficult not to see the parallel here, so I don't think the Didache is being quite as harsh as we read it.

Agreed, although I wouldn't call the Didache as harsh. Did I sound like that it was harsh? I hope not and if I did, I apologize.

As I see it, this is what happens. God moves supernaturally in a certain way, man tries to can or bottle it to make it a tradition by adding to it and crystalizing their views and then the move of God is stopped by the traditions of men. This is basically, IMV, one of the problem that Jesus dealt with in Matthew with multiple examples in Matthew 5 and 6.

It is synthesized with a statement further in the Gospel when he said Matthew 15:6b Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

I don't have a problem with someone deciding "I will fast on these two days". Wed and Friday. A made up example: Some people may have done it and the fasting and praying did wonders by the inspiration of God. Then they canned it and made it a law. Then they say men who did it outwardly towards men on Mon and Thurs so they added to it and said "Mon and Thurs group are hypocrites." then someone canned it and said Mon and Thursday are only for hypocrites... and the move of God is now completely gone.

it happens all the time in like manner in many instances.

 

[Rival]

Agreed, although I wouldn't call the Didache as harsh. Did I sound like that it was harsh? I hope not and if I did, I apologize.

As I see it, this is what happens. God moves supernaturally in a certain way, man tries to can or bottle it to make it a tradition by adding to it and crystalizing their views and then the move of God is stopped by the traditions of men. This is basically, IMV, one of the problem that Jesus dealt with in Matthew with multiple examples in Matthew 5 and 6.

It is synthesized with a statement further in the Gospel when he said Matthew 15:6b Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

I don't have a problem with someone deciding "I will fast on these two days". Wed and Friday. A made up example: Some people may have done it and the fasting and praying did wonders by the inspiration of God. Then they canned it and made it a law. Then they say men who did it outwardly towards men on Mon and Thurs so they added to it and said "Mon and Thurs group are hypocrites." then someone canned it and said Mon and Thursday are only for hypocrites... and the move of God is now completely gone.

it happens all the time in like manner in many instances.

I come from an Anglican background, so both sides make sense to me. From a scholarship POV and my university study of this, it seems fairly certain that the Didache was produced in the Matthean Community, which was responsible for that Gospel and which has very strong Jewish continuation themes, much more than the others. We can also posit that this community was tied to the Jerusalem Church, which we know was essentially Torah following Jews (we also see this in Acts, where they offer at the Temple). Bishop James was known was the 'Just', meaning a strong Torah follower, and Josephus writes that when he was executed the Jews, not just Christians, were outraged. If this is the community that produced G.Matthew and thus likely the Didache, we can piece together that this is a strongly Jewish community with no problem adhering to such rules, which would have been natural for them. This is likely why 'hypocrites' is used instead of 'Jews' (!) because they still see themselves as Jews, based in Jerusalem, speaking Aramaic, following Torah etc. We also have the tradition of Matthew originally written in Hebrew which, in this context, seems possible. The Didache follows these Jewish ideas/takes.

I think we can also couple this with Jesus saying after he's gone, 'My disciples will fast'. This is a declarative statement, not an open-ended suggestion. It may be useful here.

'Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.'

It is possible then, that the Didache was produced by one particular Christian community that was still very Jewish. From that point of view it's an intoxicatingly interesting document in and of itself, regardless whether followed. I believe, even if one doesn't hold to the whole, it is useful for guidance. Much the same as the Anglican principle on the 'Apocrypha'.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @IndigoChild5559 , @Kenny , @Rival , etc.

1) Regarding IndigoChild5559s' claim that hebrews and Israelites means the same as the word "Jews".

@IndigoChild5559 claims : “Your posts are far too difficult to reply to…”
I agree that you are having a very difficult time replying to my posts regarding the historical meaning of the word “Jew”. I also agree that you should disengage from this specific conversational topic. I understand as do discerning readers. You do not need to read my posts that disagree with your theory since they are written for other readers as much as for you.

I do NOT want to discourage you from creating meaning and theories about what early religion was like. Creating meaning and making theories is a GOOD thing. Still all historical theories tend to be tentative, pending more and better data. I DO like many of your thoughts. For example :



2) Religionists (both Jews and Christians generally) are not historians (nor are they required to be) and this means they do not know details of the history of religion or religious texts.
@IndigoChild5559 said : “Protestants are "Bible only." They don't really care about books that are not the bible, to their detriment, as they therefore know very little about how the early church worked or how their own doctrines like trinitarianism came to be mainstream. “

While this is an overgeneralization, I think it is “generally” correct. Protestants are, generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian literature while Jews are generally naïve about the early Judeo-Christian historical literature and do not understand it’s import and relationship to authentic early religion. This same thing can be said of Jews and Catholics as well.

Both the “modern” western Othodox Rabbanate Jews and “modern” Western Christians tend to have very little concept of the early literature outside of their relatively modern, “western” bibles and know very little about eastern bibles or ancient biblical text or how early “Jewish” or “Christian” bibles differed and still differ from their own. For example, in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Ethiopia, their church has 81 books in their larger eastern canon. They still include an Enoch, a Jubilees, Barnabas, etc while the protestants in the west typically have 66 books in their bible and are completely unaware of other bibles.

Bibles also differ, not only geographically, but in various time periods.

4th Century Codex Sinaiticus included Hermas and barnabas. So, the bible one grows up with is somewhat arbitrary according to time and place. The same examples can be given of Jewish texts, as the Masoretes tells us.


3) Non-historian religionists often tend to view their current religion and it's text as unchanging and free of error
People often tend to assume their biblical text (whatever version is their preferred version) is unchanged and free of errors when all large ancient biblical texts that we know of have errors and changes from their original text. For example, the Jewish Masoretes give us examples of many changes they made to the Masoretic Bible (the official bible of Orthodox Rabbinic Jews) and even the reasons they made changes to the biblical text. The Christians, on the other hand, often make the exact same error and assume the New Testament (and also often the Old Testament as well) are unchanged and without error.

In fact, many urban myths have sprung up to try to bolster such views. Sometimes you will hear both Jews AND Christians say the various ancient biblical texts (such as the dead sea scroll version) “have been compared to the modern bible” and “they are the same” when obviously they are quite different in many instances.

I think it is typical for modern Jews and Christians to be provincial in that they assume their modern versions of their religions are the way “Judaism” and “Christianity” always were (respectively).



3) A common tendency is to over-generalize regarding early Judeo-Christian religion history and it's texts

IndigoChild5559 said regarding Protestants : “They also falsely imagine that the early church was like evangelical churches, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the early church was more of a proto catholic/orthodox variety that believed in Real Presence, infant baptism, salvific baptism, the authority of the bishops, and much much more.”

While I agree with you that early Jewish and Christian religion was different than the modern, "western" Judaism and Christianity, your statement over-generalizes on specific points. For example, it is quite unclear regarding “Real Prescence”, “baptism of infants”, salvation by baptism alone (if that is what you meant by “salvific baptism”).

Early Interpretations differed regarding these issues and the early texts as a genre are helpful in that they can describe what various Christians (and Jews) believed and how they interpreted the biblical text they had

I DO agree with you regarding authority of Bishops of the various individual Churches.


In any case, I will aways try to admit agreement when I think you are correct and I think you often have good, solid, insights and hope you continue trying to find historical meaning and theories. I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful IndigoChild5559.

Clear
σιφισεω

Please do not continue to address things to me. I have explained to you twice why I do not wish to converse with you. I wish you the best.

1) Regarding the proper way to disengage from a lost debate :
Readers : There are much classier and much better ways to react to losing a debate. There was no intent on my part to embarrass or belittle.

A second point.
IF you no longer wish to converse with another poster.
You should actually TELL them you do not want to converse with them rather than simply claiming you told them you do not want to converse with them.

A third point.
IF you want to enter a historical debate, at least know sufficient historical data about the specific historical point you are debating.



2) Regarding the Didache (and other early Jewish and Christian religious texts)

I mentioned in post #37 a principle regarding early sacred religious texts that “as a single document, the didache is not as important as the entire genre of ancient documents it is a part of."

For example, if a single document describes a Jewish or a Christian belief, then that specific Jewish or Christian belief, or doctrine may only represent the opinion of the documents' author. However, IF a specific doctrine or belief appears in multiple ancient documents that are separated by vast amounts of time and over large geographical distance, then that belief has a much higher chance of being orthodox to the ancient religion those documents represent.” (Clear, in post #37)

The Didache and other very early documents are incredibly important to religious historians partly because they give us glimpses into early Jewish and Christian beliefs, doctrines and practices when they are taken as a genre.

For example, the didache references the earliest version of mode of baptism other than immersion and the a version of oldest known Eucharistic prayers at a time when there continues to be living apostles (“Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord” Didache 155:11:4) and prophets alongside an authorized, resident ministry (bishops and decons…).

It is closer in time to Paul than to the apostolic Fathers (such as Ignatius) and, reflects a time closer to that of Paul (who died ca mid-60s) than Ignatius (who died after 110). It is a time when the Jewish movement later known as “Christianity” is still known by the term “the way” (as an analogue to “THE TWO WAYS” of 4Q473 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is written when John is writing his apocalypse, and Clement, the colleague of Paul is writing his sermon (I Clement). These are all important, but they are more important when compared to other early documents that display parallel beliefs, doctrines and practices.

For examples :

3) Epigraphs and ancient Judeo-Christian teaching regarding the abuse of Children

(The second commandment of the Didache is: “You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide.”

Parallels from other early sacred documents include : “You shall not abort a child nor again, commit infanticide.” The Epistle of Barnabas 19:5 (Remember, Barnabas is IN the early Christian bible (C Sinaiticus) and remains IN the modern eastern orthodox bible (Ethiopian).

Regarding the names and misdeeds of the fallen angels it was said “ The fifth is named Kasadya, it is he who revealed to the children of the people (the various) flagellations of all evil– (the flagellation) of the souls and the demons, the smashing of the embryo in the womb so that it may be crushed...” 1st Enoch (“jewish” enoch) 69:12;

Describing the morals of the last days it was said:
“In those days, the nations shall be confounded, and the families of the nations shall rise in the day of the destruction of the sinners. In those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) shall come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their midst; they shall (also) abandon their (other) children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their beloved ones.” 1st Enoch 99:4-5;

“254 All the righteous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages, as many as formerly did evil or committed murders,... ....”279 Again, those who defiled the flesh by licentiousness, or as many as undid the girdle of virginity by secret intercourse, as many as aborted what they carried in the womb, as many as cast forth their offspring unlawfully. Sibylline Oracles Book 2 vs 254 and vs 275-280;

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Regarding a woman punished in the afterlife for Abortion : “And the angels said to me, “She begrudged giving her milk but also cast infants into the rivers.” The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5:3-4;

Speaking of women in the judgment the text say :
“And he saw in a most obscure place another furnace burning, into which many women were cast. And he said, “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They had sons in adultery and killed them.” And those little ones themselves accused them, saying, “Lord, the souls which you gave to us these (women) took away. And he said, “Who are they?” And the angels said, “They killed their sons.” The Vision of Ezra v51-55;

The point of citing parallels from other early sacred literature is that the Didache represents in this instance, a common religious belief and teaching rather than simply an opinion of its author.

As @Rival pointed out in his opinion regarding Pauls writings, The early Judeo-Christian doctrine concerning the relationship between salvific grace and works were inseparably connected. Individuals were supposed to live moral lives before they could expect to receive salvation.

For example, early ordinances such as the eucharist were connected with the moral lives of the individuals who wanted to engage in these ordinances.

The Didache says of the early Judeo-Christian Eucharist : The didache indicates an early, set pattern in the way the eucharist was to be done. For example : “concerning the Eucharist, give thanks as follows. First, concerning the cup: “We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant; to you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread” “We give you thanks our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus, your servant; to you be the glory forever.” Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.”

Importantly the next verse says : :...5 But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for the Lord has also spoken concerning this: “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” The Didache 9:1-4 and 5. (As a covenantal ordinance, those NOT making the covenant of thanks and remembrance were not to take the eucharist/sacrament as a sign of making a covenant they have no intention to commit to );

Note the line in the prayer given AFTER the Eucharist : “If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen Didache 155:10:6;

Even the Dead Sea Scroll Jews' version of the eucharistic meal had a set pattern involving those in authority.

The 1Q documents say “When gathered at the communal table, having set out bread and wine so that the communal table is set for eating and the wine poured for drinking, non may reach for the first portion of the bread or the wine before the Priest. For he shall bless the first portion of the bread and the wine, reaching for the bread first. Afterward the Messiah of Israel shall reach for the bread. Finally, each member of the whole congregation of the Yahad shall give a blessing in descending order of rank. This procedure shall govern every meal, provided at least ten men are gathered together.” CHARTER FOR ISRAEL IN THE LAST DAYS 1QSa, 1Q28a Col. 1 ;


The didaches’ connection with the duty to live moral lives parallels many other early sacred texts. For examples :

“8 Being adorned with a virtuous and honorable manner of life, you performed all your duties in the fear of him. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were “written on the tablets of your hearts” 1 Clement 2:8 (Clement was a co-worker with the apostle Paul)

“...concerning the former acts of ignorance,” he said, “God alone has the power to give healing, for all authority is his. 4 But now protect yourself, and the Lord, who is exceedingly compassionate, will give healing for your previous acts of ignorance, if from now on you defile neither your flesh nor the spirit. For they belong together, and one cannot be defiled without the other. Therefore keep both pure, and you will live to God.” Hermas 60:3-4 (Hermas was IN the 4th c.e. bible of C. Sinaiticus)

“Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomsoever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. 2 Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the Bishop. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 (Ignatius was bishop in a time when an apostle could still be living, thus he was among the “apostolic” Fathers – not to be confused with the later “Church” Fathers.

“So, since he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again. The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11 (Barnabas was in the early 4th c.e. C. Sinaiticus bible and remains in the modern eastern Orthodox Bible -Ethiopian)

“Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of god. They have no concern for love; none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty.” “They abstain from the Eucharist....Therefore those who deny the good gift of God perish in their contentiousness.” Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 6:2 and 7:1;

“The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body. It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man. A horse sires a horse, a man begets man, a god brings forth a god.” The gospel of Phillip;

Note that the wine is a symbol, a “type” for the blood of the Messiah. Other parallels describing this point are why I pointed out that @IndigoChild5559 was making yet another historical error in his claim regarding the belief in the “real presence” in early Christianity. It was simply another historical error and early documents as a genre help us discover their actual earliest recorded beliefs.

“As long as I am with you, give heed to me and obey me. But when I am to depart from you, remember me.” The Apocryphon of James

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim (καταγγελλετε) the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor 11:23-26;

In any case, the earliest Jewish and Christian documents are important in that they reveal much about what early Jewish and early Christian religion, their beliefs and practices were like. As such, they are wonderful and important documents.

Clear
ακακσεω

 

[Kenny]

I think we can also couple this with Jesus saying after he's gone, 'My disciples will fast'. This is a declarative statement, not an open-ended suggestion. It may be useful here.

'Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.'

I can only support the reality that fasting is part of a Christian life. I won't argue that point!

I come from an Anglican background, so both sides make sense to me. From a scholarship POV and my university study of this, it seems fairly certain that the Didache was produced in the Matthean Community, which was responsible for that Gospel and which has very strong Jewish continuation themes, much more than the others. We can also posit that this community was tied to the Jerusalem Church, which we know was essentially Torah following Jews (we also see this in Acts, where they offer at the Temple). Bishop James was known was the 'Just', meaning a strong Torah follower, and Josephus writes that when he was executed the Jews, not just Christians, were outraged. If this is the community that produced G.Matthew and thus likely the Didache, we can piece together that this is a strongly Jewish community with no problem adhering to such rules, which would have been natural for them. This is likely why 'hypocrites' is used instead of 'Jews' (!) because they still see themselves as Jews, based in Jerusalem, speaking Aramaic, following Torah etc. We also have the tradition of Matthew originally written in Hebrew which, in this context, seems possible. The Didache follows these Jewish ideas/takes.

I agree that the Book of Matthew had very strong Jewish themes. As we study it, we see the Gospel of Matthew as written for and to the Jews and thus will have strong Jewish themes much more than the others because the others were pointed for a different audience.

Yes... both sides encourage fasting. I don't think I have disagreed with that.

Yes, it is possible that the Didache was produced by a Matthew community... not sure how we would know in a definitive manner but I see the strong possibility.

To say that this community produces the G. Matthew, I think we would have a disagreeing point of view. Too much fathers of the faith that said differently. So I think it is too much of an "if" and it is a futile effort to support that theory.

I'm not sure we can go any farther than this.

It is possible then, that the Didache was produced by one particular Christian community that was still very Jewish. From that point of view it's an intoxicatingly interesting document in and of itself, regardless whether followed. I believe, even if one doesn't hold to the whole, it is useful for guidance. Much the same as the Anglican principle on the 'Apocrypha'.

Interesting... YES. Great to study? I'm sure.

As it stands, I have enough to study with the books that are more directly connected to Jesus... other than talking about it, I find that the needs of people are much more serious and needful than studying the Didache. (As a pastor)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree that the Book of Matthew had very strong Jewish themes. As we study it, we see the Gospel of Matthew as written for and to the Jews

Matthew 27:25 says, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'​

If Matthew wanted to evangelize Jews, he should never have said that we are cursed. It just doesn't do much to make us receptive.

 

[Kenny]

Matthew 27:25 says, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'​

If Matthew wanted to evangelize Jews, he should never have said that we are cursed. It just doesn't do much to make us receptive.

Not at all... Reporting what actually happened doesn't translate into "sanitize it". Those same people received mercy in Acts 2 - makes mercy even more precious. It makes us even more receptive when we understand that though they cried"

His blood be on us and on our children.'​

- God said, "No way! Yeshua Hamashiach paid for it" (Is 53)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not at all... Reporting what actually happened doesn't translate into "sanitize it". Those same people received mercy in Acts 2 - makes mercy even more precious. It makes us even more receptive when we understand that though they cried"

His blood be on us and on our children.'​

- God said, "No way! Yeshua Hamashiach paid for it" (Is 53)

Kenny, maybe yu aren't aware, but for 2000 years christians used this verse as proof that all jews were cursed.

 

[Kenny]

Kenny, maybe yu aren't aware, but for 2000 years christians used this verse as proof that all jews were cursed.

Yes, I am aware of how people twist the message of grace at the expense of other scriptures that contradict that position. Wrong is wrong... and this was definitely and unequivocally wrong. But Jewish people are God's chosen and they are forgiven

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Not to mention the fact that, as a chosen people, there is an end-time revival with the Jewish people.

Yes... Christian do have a bad past even as when the Catholics were killing their own subset family called Protestants. But, of course, we don't have the corner of the market either.

The southern tribes of Judah were at war with the northern tribes of Israel and they worshipped Baal, Ashteroth and Molec at times and yet God forgave.

HOWEVER, it doesn't change God's love for His chosen people of for the rest of the world either. As we hold to, Jesus was made a curse to redeem us of the curse of the law. As Yeshua Hamashiach, He has brought humanity back into full fellowship with YHWH no matter what we have said or done.

We hold unto our belief that God so loved the world (Jew, Greek, male & female) that if they believe on Yeshua, sin (purposeful or ignorantly) will be placed as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103) crowning us with tender mercies and loving kindness.

of course, all the above is in context of my signature.