Who is a true Christian? Find out here...

[roli]

roli, read the Didache, you will find it is mostly quotes straight from the bible.

Also, the 66 books is the protestant bible, it is not the original bible and even if it were, the Didache was only not included because it is basically a summary. No point in repeating yourself five times in one book eh?
There is nothing contrary to the bible, nothing heretical or subversive in the Didache - it's Christian morality condensed.

I did read the Didache and I also said that many of those quotes were from the bible,this I agreed,but it is still not canonical writings,please read the history ON the subject and It also leaves out the name of Jesus Christ.
It sounds like an intentional Christless teaching which most man centered writings tend to be.

Similar to why the Gnostic Gospels were not accepted and all the other man made writings and teachings.
There was a reason they were not accepted and as I read such writings with the spirit of God dwelling in a christian, I can see how they conflict with who Christ claimed to be
There had to have been some stipulations,requirements,guidelines and continuity in place when they selected the books they did,which many writings were centered on man themself and many excluded the life ,death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that only through Him was ther salvation.

You leave that out you have no gospel,which is the good news that jESUS made atonement for sin,redeemed and justified man.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation
It is the power of the cross and death of JESUS and not just good teaching that sets men free from a sinful nature

Give these nice moral writings to a society and they will agree that they are good and moral and will follow them to the best of their ability,but without the power of Jesus' name and the power of the Holy Spirit they are just good writings left to man's interpretation and ability to carry them out without help from the Holy Spirit.
If we look around us these moral teachings alone are not effective in the heart of man to transform the sinful nature.
Therefore too much room left for relativism,humanism,existentialism and rationalism.

The scriptures and or law themselves alone were never intended to impart eternal life or change man,they were meant to speak and point to Jesus, he is our model.
Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The problem is that most religions have these morals or a good portion of them but
have no relationship with God only through His Son Jesus Christ

 

[roli]

roli, read the Didache, you will find it is mostly quotes straight from the bible.

Also, the 66 books is the protestant bible, it is not the original bible and even if it were, the Didache was only not included because it is basically a summary. No point in repeating yourself five times in one book eh?
There is nothing contrary to the bible, nothing heretical or subversive in the Didache - it's Christian morality condensed.

I did read the Didache and I also said that many of those quotes were from the bible,this I agreed,but it is still not canonical writings,please read the history ON the subject and It also leaves out the name of Jesus Christ.
It sounds like an intentional Christless teaching which most man centered writings tend to be.

Similar to why the Gnostic Gospels were not accepted and all the other man made writings and teachings.
There was a reason they were not accepted and as I read such writings with the spirit of God dwelling in a christian, I can see how they conflict with who Christ claimed to be
There had to have been some stipulations,requirements,guidelines and continuity in place when they selected the books they did,which many writings were centered on man themself and many excluded the life ,death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that only through Him was ther salvation.

You leave that out you have no gospel,which is the good news that jESUS made atonement for sin,redeemed and justified man.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation
It is the power of the cross and death of JESUS and not just good teaching that sets men free from a sinful nature

Give these nice moral writings to a society and they will agree that they are good and moral and will follow them to the best of their ability,but without the power of Jesus' name and the power of the Holy Spirit they are just good writings left to man's interpretation and ability to carry them out without help from the Holy Spirit.
If we look around us these moral teachings alone are not effective in the heart of man to transform the sinful nature.
Therefore too much room left for relativism,humanism,existentialism and rationalism.

The scriptures and or law themselves alone were never intended to impart eternal life or change man,they were meant to speak and point to Jesus, he is our model.
Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The problem is that most religions have these morals or a good portion of them but
have no relationship with God only through His Son Jesus Christ

 

[roli]

Sorry ,doubled clicked

 

[!Fluffy!]

Here's another source with good commentary:

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm

And btw the OP's link to Early Christian Writings proved to be an excellent site on early writings, with many sources for exegetical scholarship and an interesting little forum: "Early Christian Writings is the most complete collection of documents from the first two centuries with translations and commentary."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

The above link is to the Didache, the text possibly originated from an early Apostolic council - the absolute basics of the faith.

Essentially the document is an instruction leaflet for new converts of the first century, it clearly sets out how someone must act and what sacraments they must take part in to be a member of the Christian community.

There is little information about theology, christology, revelation or prophecy - in fact they are deliberately left out. This is simply the basics of Christian conduct with a Second Coming prophecy at the end, which may well be a later interpolation as it doesn't really gel with the rest of the text.

How many of today's Christians follow all the rules laid out in the Didache? Do you?

Did they?

My answer would humbly be:

For if you are able to support the whole yoke of the Lord, you shall be flawless;
But if you are not able, do that which you are able.

 

[gnostic]

Can be saved, if you follow your own way to Christ (as faithfully as you could, from Jesus' teaching in the gospels), without belonging to a church or being baptised?

What I am trying to say is, Do a person really need a church to be a Christian? Or more to the point, can a person be a true Christian without the church?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, Paul obviously - and presumably it is from a roundabout reading of his letters that we get this strange "by grace alone" doctrine.

But John, seriously? The gospel was pretty late compred to the Didache and the synoptics, and who even knows who wrote those letters and revelation. I'd class him more as an 'expander of the faith' (if that makes any sense) rather than a founder like Peter or James.

The tradition that John the apostle was with Christ and wrote late in life is completely feasible - remember that Christianity was not founded in one place(!). We have four missions [Matthew, Mark (with Petrine letters), Luke-Acts (with Pauline letters) and John (with Johannine letters)] four Gospels, and even a counter mission (the Judiazers).

 

[James the Persian]

That is strange indeed, for it is the central theme of the actual Bible. I enjoy C.S. Lewis' writing, he wrote the intro to that 'On the Incarnation'. I read some, but it is very long, perhaps a few short quotes would be helpful. The Bible is very simple, straight-forward and clear, it states that Jesus had to die for our sins and if we believe in Him, that his death was enough, that God was satisfied as Isaiah writes, then we have eternal life.

Does it really state that so clearly? Care to show me the passages? And if this is the undoubted central theme of the Bible hen how is it that the early Fathers (who were much closer to the events than you or I) seem to agree with our view and not yours? Were they confused? Illiterate? I see no idea of satisfaction whatsoever in the Bible. I do see a God who so loved us that He became man to reunite Himself to us such that we could be saved. Who healed the human nature so hurt by Adam's turn from God. Who, through His death and resurrection, destroyed the hold of sin and death over man. What I absolutely cannot find anywhere in the Bible is the idea that His death payed for our sins in our stead in order to satisfy the 'justice' of His Father.

James

 

[James the Persian]

I did read the Didache and I also said that many of those quotes were from the bible,this I agreed,but it is still not canonical writings,please read the history ON the subject and It also leaves out the name of Jesus Christ.
It sounds like an intentional Christless teaching which most man centered writings tend to be.

Interesting. The quotes in the Didache are not from the Bible for there was no Bible at the time of its composition. It was not left out of the canon for the reasons you state at all - Katzpur was far closer to the truth - and it and other texts like the Shepherd of Hermas which were also candidates for canonisation continued to be seen as valuable long after the canon was set (and in fact still are in the east).

How do you determine what is or is not canonical? For me it's really rather easy, but I fail to see how a sola scripturalist can do it (and, in fact, as it was sola scripturalist Protestants who altered the canon after the Reformation, they clearly cannot), so what exactly is your criterion for determining if a text is canonical or not? And what do you think canonical means? Can a non-canonical text, for instance, be an inspired one or do you think that all Divine inspiration is confined solely to the pages of your reduced Biblical canon?

James

 

[Halcyon]

The tradition that John the apostle was with Christ and wrote late in life is completely feasible - remember that Christianity was not founded in one place(!). We have four missions [Matthew, Mark (with Petrine letters), Luke-Acts (with Pauline letters) and John (with Johannine letters)] four Gospels, and even a counter mission (the Judiazers).

I think i may have given you the wrong impression, i don't think the apostle John wrote any of the books in the NT, and i'm pretty certain that you know that too.

After all, could an Aramaic speaking Galilean fisherman compose the Gospel of John in Greek, with all its multiple meanings and word play? I doubt it.
Also, as you know, the Gospel (like the synoptics) is anonymous, it is mearly tradition and scholarly speculation (both ancient and modern) that identifies the authors. We could realistically ascribe John to Andrew, James or any other apostle/disciple with just as much authority. Heck, it could even have been written by Irenaeus, he did seem to love it an unhealthy amount.

1 John could have been written by the same author as the gospel, but it is inferior in both scope and language, i reckon that the author may have been a student of the gospel writer's, or possibly even an elder. 2 and 3 John, plus the Revelation, are generally considered to have different authors anyway.

That they all come from the same 'Johannine' Christian community seems like a logical conclusion, but i'd personally suggest the community was a well founded early 2nd century Christian group before it started creating literature. That, via Irenaeus, they played a significant role in creating orthodox Christianity is undeniable. But would i place them with the founders of the faith, alongside Mark, Luke and Paul - no.

 

[joeboonda]

Then why the Didache?
Why include int he gosples all that irrelevant stuff that encompasses Christ's teaching, when the only important bit is at the very end?

If God molds the "saved" into good people after they accept Christ, why on earth did the early Church bother to write documents listing what they expect of new converts?

It seems to me that your version of Christianity is the lazy man's version, the version for those that want to believe like a Christian, but don't want to live like a Christian.

God forbid! Although salvation is free to everyone who has believed, given by God's grace, undeserved, unmerited favor, the glory all going to Christ and none to us, Christ and the epistles DO teach us how to grow in grace by reading the Word, praying, obeying the Lord, loving Him and our neighbors, soul-winning, worshipping, putting on the whole armor of God that we may resist the attacks of the Devil, and go on to maturity and bear much fruit. No, a thousand times, no! Christians do not stand at the Great White Throne Judgement, but they DO stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ, where their works will be judged what sort they be, either wood, hay, or stubble, or gold, silver and precious stones. They will pass through the fire, so to speak, and some folks' works will burn up and they will be saved, 'yet as by fire', with nothing to show for their lives, while others, who have grown and resisted temptation and were faithful in their love of God and others and who served the Lord in their lifetimes will receive a great reward, and postion in the Millenial Kindgdom. There are five crowns described that a Christian can win, also. No, Heaven will not be exactly the same for everyone. Its like Jesus is an airplane, we are all on board heading to Chicago, well, some folks act up, one treats the stewardess poorly, cuts off the tie of the pilot, disturbs and disrupts the flight, well, he still gets to Chicago, but he may not end up where he would like to in Chicago. Lol, use that analogy if it helps, if not, throw it out. Thing is, salvation is free, we are free of guilt and fear because salvation is of God, not of us. So, knowing how God loves us, and saved us, freely, without any help from us, we were drowning in the ocean and he rescued us, though he did not have to, we now serve Him in love and gratitude rather than in guilt and fear. Salvation is free, from God, rewards, treasures in Heaven are not. But, knowing that God freely pardoned a poor wretch like me makes me want to want to serve Him, and especially to tell others how they may be saved from Hell.

 

[joeboonda]

Does it really state that so clearly? Care to show me the passages? And if this is the undoubted central theme of the Bible hen how is it that the early Fathers (who were much closer to the events than you or I) seem to agree with our view and not yours? Were they confused? Illiterate? I see no idea of satisfaction whatsoever in the Bible. I do see a God who so loved us that He became man to reunite Himself to us such that we could be saved. Who healed the human nature so hurt by Adam's turn from God. Who, through His death and resurrection, destroyed the hold of sin and death over man. What I absolutely cannot find anywhere in the Bible is the idea that His death payed for our sins in our stead in order to satisfy the 'justice' of His Father.

James

Yes it does, do you read the same Bible as I??? What is the gospel? It is that Christ died, was buried, and rose again, is it not? What is it that you believe differently than that? You don't see anywhere that Christ died to pay for our sins and His father was satisfied???? Again, what Bible are you reading???

53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
(King James Bible, Romans)

15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(King James Bible, John)
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(King James Bible, John)
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(King James Bible, John)
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
(King James Bible, John)
5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
(King James Bible, John)
6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
(King James Bible, John)
6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(King James Bible, John)
6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(King James Bible, John)
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
(King James Bible, 1 John)
Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
(King James Bible, Acts)
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(King James Bible, Acts)
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(King James Bible, Romans)
5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
(King James Bible, Romans)
1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
(King James Bible, Ephesians)
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(King James Bible, Ephesians)
and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(King James Bible, Colossians)
1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;
(King James Bible, Colossians)
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
(King James Bible, Hebrews)
9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(King James Bible, Hebrews)
13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
(King James Bible, Hebrews)
1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemedwith corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
(King James Bible, 1 Peter)
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
(King James Bible, Revelation)

We are redeemed, that is purchased, by the blood of Jesus Christ, our sins forgiven and washed away by His blood. He is our redeemer, He paid for our sins, He bought us, we are now His. Jesus paid the penalty of sin on the cross, what is the penalty of sin? Death. Jesus died. He paid the penalty once for all so we don't have to. We simply believe in, believe on, trust in that and nothing more and we are freely pardoned, halleluia to the Lamb of God! I don't know what Bible some of you all read, but this is just the tip of the iceberg concerning how our Redeemer has bought us and paid for our sins freely, who has died in our place, who loved us while we were yet sinners and died for us, was buried, and rose again. I know no other gospel, this is the clear teaching of the Bible.

 

[Halcyon]

You do realise you started your post by breaking the 3rd commandment, don't you?

God forbid! Although salvation is free to everyone who has believed, given by God's grace......

And this is found in which Christian scriptures?

The simple fact is, your version of Christianity is not that taught by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John or anyone else until about the 11th century, and not in its current form until Calvin in the 16th.

If you could go back to the first century and spouted your last post to those early Christian groups, you would have been seen as being as much of a heretic as i would have been. Jesus would not recognise his teachings in your words, Paul may have seen a warped version of his letter to the Romans, but i don't he would have agreed with it.

Your Christianity is based on some chapters from Romans, Revelation, plus a view quotes from Isaiah, you practically ignore the gospels completely.

 

[joeboonda]

You do realise you started your post by breaking the 3rd commandment, don't you?


And this is found in which Christian scriptures?

The simple fact is, your version of Christianity is not that taught by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John or anyone else until about the 11th century, and not in its current form until Calvin in the 16th.

If you could go back to the first century and spouted your last post to those early Christian groups, you would have been seen as being as much of a heretic as i would have been. Jesus would not recognise his teachings in your words, Paul may have seen a warped version of his letter to the Romans, but i don't he would have agreed with it.

Your Christianity is based on some chapters from Romans, Revelation, plus a view quotes from Isaiah, you practically ignore the gospels completely.

First of all, I believe the WHOLE Bible. Secondly, PAUL said GOD FORBID twice in Romans, I was quoting Him, and not using the Lord's name in vain. Thirdly, it is exactly what the BIBLE teaches, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you could go back to the first century and spouted your last post to those early Christian groups, you would have been seen as being as much of a heretic as i would have been. Jesus would not recognise his teachings in your words, Paul may have seen a warped version of his letter to the Romans, but i don't he would have agreed with it.

Your Christianity is based on some chapters from Romans, Revelation, plus a view quotes from Isaiah, you practically ignore the gospels completely.

I can see it now - Irenaeus against joeboonda - tracing joe's heresy back to Simon Mangus and Hippolytus connecting him to some obscure Greco-Roman philosopher.

 

[Halcyon]

First of all, I believe the WHOLE Bible. Secondly, PAUL said GOD FORBID twice in Romans, I was quoting Him, and not using the Lord's name in vain. Thirdly, it is exactly what the BIBLE teaches, nothing more, nothing less.

Looks like taking His name in vain to me, and if Paul did it then he is guilty of breaking the commandment too.

 

[Halcyon]

I can see it now - Irenaeus against joeboonda - tracing joe's heresy back to Simon Mangus and Hippolytus connecting him to some obscure Greco-Roman philosopher.

Oh indeed, placing so much emphasis on the epistles and ignoring most of Irenaeus' four-fold gospel would result in quite the battle, probably a fist fight.

 

[sojourner]

Yes it does, do you read the same Bible as I??? What is the gospel? It is that Christ died, was buried, and rose again, is it not? What is it that you believe differently than that? You don't see anywhere that Christ died to pay for our sins and His father was satisfied???? Again, what Bible are you reading???

Funny that Matthew's gospel message begins with tying Jesus into Israeli blue blood and goes straight to the incarnation. Mark's gospel begins with prophecy and with a call to repentance. It continues with Jesus' baptism and the calling of the Twelve. Luke's gospel begins with prophecy of the coming Messiah, Mary's obedience, and moves on to the incarnation. John's gospel begins with the incarnation and continues with the baptism of Jesus.

It appears to me that the gospel message is more clearly that Jesus came, as foretold, and lived among us as one of us, completing God's creation and establishing his kingdom.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Looks like taking His name in vain to me, and if Paul did it then he is guilty of breaking the commandment too.

In the Greek, God's name is not mentioned. It is me genivito which is a Stoic diatribal formula that is the most emphatic way to literally say may it never become (me = no genivito = become).

The translation "God forbid" does not take God's name in vain because it is what Paul was trying to express in the context of who he thought God is. That is, if God is true to his saving character, may he always forbid changing his mind. It is an expression of hope that God will remain merciful in that God forbids certain things to come to pass rather than taking God's name in vain.

 

[Halcyon]

In the Greek, God's name is not mentioned. It is me genivito which is a Stoic diatribal formula that is the most emphatic way to literally say may it never become.

That explains why half the versions of the bible i searched didn't have it. Cheers.

Am i right though AE? It is taking the Lord's name in vain to use such a phrase isn't it, its not like he's using it in prayer or worship?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That explains why half the versions of the bible i searched didn't have it. Cheers.

Am i right though AE? It is taking the Lord's name in vain to use such a phrase isn't it, its not like he's using it in prayer or worship?

It depends on the context. I can see how it can be used in vain - the very same words. But if it is used as a wish for God to remain who He is - then it can be a heartfelt prayer, and indeed a prayer of blessing to others. I've prayed for God to forbid things.

It can be used prayerfully without an actual context of prayer - like sending up a wish to God... It looks to me like it's at least possible that Joe is wanting God to remain who he thinks that God is. Whether that's vain or not is a matter of grace.

I'm with you - it's probably better not to use the phrase.