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

[Halcyon]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

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?

 

[Valjean]

Facsinating -- so unlike the Christians I know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

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

That wording may cause us to form a highly speculative context for the origination of the Didache. Instead of being the product of a unified church council, it is most likely the product of a bishop and circulated in proto-orthodox circles. The Didache is included in some Christian canons along with 1 Clement and the Apocrypha.

 

[michel]

It is fascinating; but to live up to those standards ? I wish! the one area of my life on which I am concentrating on at the moment is non-judgementalism - it isn't always as easy as it sounds; the other is to proffer the 'other cheek'.

Strangely, I can achieve that with strangers; the one area of my life I find harder to cope with are the ones I love; I do tend to to easily become upset with them (but unexplainable "rage" is a symptom of personality disorder; one 'personal victory' (as I see it) is that I am now able to control the urge to become violent; I always struggled with that when I was young).

Who said Life was easy ?

 

[Halcyon]

That wording may cause us to form a highly speculative context for the origination of the Didache.

It was meant to. This is the sort of text you expect from the founders of a religion though, don't you think?

Instead of being the product of a unified church council, it is most likely the product of a bishop and circulated in proto-orthodox circles. The Didache is included in the earliest New Testament(s) along with 1 Clement and the Apocrypha.

May well have been. You haven't answered the question though AE - do you follow all the rules contained therein, and if not, why not?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It was meant to. This is the sort of text you expect from the founders of a religion though, don't you think?

Sure, but there are portions in the text that seem to know of all the Gospel traditions and Paul, and address a post-apostolic situation in the church.

May well have been. You haven't answered the question though AE - do you follow all the rules contained therein, and if not, why not?

I can't detect anything in the Didache that is unfamiliar to one who lives according to Christian tradition and theology. So, yes.

 

[Fluffy]

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

I do not follow some of the teachings in the Didache. For example, whilst it might be very easy for me to interpret "unlawful sex" as referring to rape alone, I know, given similar writings that this is wishful thinking and things such as homosexuality is also being included although I am surprised it is not mentioned by name. Since I do not consider homosexuality to be immoral, I will not follow the teaching. If God came before me and told me homosexuality was immoral without providing sufficient justification, I would not agree with him.

The same goes for practicing things such as "magic" and "sorcery". The justification for this is that it leads to idolatry which I again view as very poor indeed. I feel that a man who does not believe in God can still lead a perfect life, that there is no correlation between believing in God and leading a perfect life and that there is nothing inherently wrong in not believing in God. Again, if God (or anyone) would like to provide me with evidence indicating otherwise then I would be happy to change my position.

Strangely, I can achieve that with strangers; the one area of my life I find harder to cope with are the ones I love;

I have found this exact samy thing, Michel. The only thing I can think of is that (in my case at least) I have much lower expectations of strangers than I do of my friends and family. Therefore, when a friend hurts me, I am less prepared and the ease with which I can turn the other cheek in the case of a stranger is made far more difficult.

However, this leads me into further difficulty since if the cause of this is indeed the difference in level of expectation, then the remedy would be to lower my expectations of my friends and family. Yet this seems intimately intertwined with the closeness I feel for these people. I feel like I cannot do that without losing any meaning of the term "friend" along with it.

Perhaps what I should do instead would be to exercise greater control in my actions and words and hope that the feeling of hurt dissapates as this control grows.

 

[ayani]

reminds me quite a bit of tomas a kempis' text "in imitation of christ".

i don't live up to these ideals very well, though i strive to. dang, i keep thinking "were i to meet a man or woman who did, what a saintly, neat person they'd be." and perhaps, how "useless" to many in our industrial, individualistic little world. cool find, Halcyon.

 

[joeboonda]

Well, it was nice, but it said nothing of how to actually become truly, a true Christian. To become born-again one must repent of their unbelief in Christ, and trust alone in Christ, that He paid for all our sins and imputes His righteousness unto us in place of our own. One who has admitted they are a sinner, their works of righteousness are as filthy rags, and who turn from their way to God's way and accept by faith the free gift by trusting in Christ are the only true Christians. They may not be perfect, but are forgiven, growing in grace, already possessing eternal life, never to come back into condemnation, because of not what they did, but what God did on the cross.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, it was nice, but it said nothing of how to actually become truly, a true Christian.

Following the teachings of Christ and being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit leaves nothing of the Gospel out.

 

[joeboonda]

One can follow Christ's example and treat people as they want to be treated and not be saved. One can be Baptized a thousand times and no amount of that water save them. Many follow 'some' of Christ's teachings but ignore the real message. The real message He brought was that He was God in the flesh, come to die for our sins and rise the third day, that whoever believes that His death paid for all our sins as and accepts this free gift on faith is no longer under condemnation, but those who do not believe in Him are condemned already. He taught that no man comes to the Father but by Him, by repenting, turning from the sin of unbelief to belief in Christ alone for salvation, for salvation comes not from man, but from God, from Jesus Christ the Lord. All these religions that deny Christ died to pay for our sins, that He did not 'come in the flesh', that He is not God, that follow mans ways, that man thinks they can be saved, or if they believe in Christ, try to add something else they do for salvation, are not truely saved. Man cannot do anything whatsoever to save himself, except accept the gift. Salvation is from God, not man.

 

[Fluffy]

One can follow Christ's example and treat people as they want to be treated and not be saved. One can be Baptized a thousand times and no amount of that water save them. Many follow 'some' of Christ's teachings but ignore the real message.

This may be true Joeboonda but it is hardly uncommon nor unvirtuous to find people, including Christians, more concerned about alleviating the suffering of others than their own personal salvation. Perhaps the reason the NT places personal salvation at the forefront is not because God views it as more important but because the writers assumed man to have a selfish nature and hoped that the 2nd "less important" goal would follows as a result.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

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

The First thing these types of questions presuppose is that Christianity is only about following a set of rules. Not only does the Bible acknowledge that nobody follows all the rules (Rom. 3:23), but these questions forget the whole backdrop of the Gospel Message, which is that Jesus died on a cross because nobody can "follow all the rules" (Rom. 5:8). The only prerequisite to becoming a Christian as Angellous Evangellous very nicely put it is

Following the teachings of Christ and being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit leaves nothing of the Gospel out

Besides that, there is a constant theme in the NT about God doing a work inside Christians that is a continuing work to make Christians more Christ-like (Phil. 1:6). Those who are overly concerned with "following all the rules" might do well to go over Gal. Ch.3 and other related scriptures.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Halcyon]

Well, it was nice, but it said nothing of how to actually become truly, a true Christian. To become born-again one must repent of their unbelief in Christ, and trust alone in Christ, that He paid for all our sins and imputes His righteousness unto us in place of our own. One who has admitted they are a sinner, their works of righteousness are as filthy rags, and who turn from their way to God's way and accept by faith the free gift by trusting in Christ are the only true Christians. They may not be perfect, but are forgiven, growing in grace, already possessing eternal life, never to come back into condemnation, because of not what they did, but what God did on the cross.

Well, considering that you can't get much earlier than this document, i would suggest that the early Christians thought quite differently to you and that this concentration entirely on the sacrifice of Christ is a much later development.

I'm not saying that the crucifixion and resurrection weren't very important to these early Christians, but it seems clear from the Didache, and the Gospels themselves, that the rules set out in the Didache were the first step, the foundation of Christianity.

Does the Didache, whether it was written by the apostles or by an early bishop of the church, place trust in God's grace first on the list?
No, and from this we can surmise that to the earliest Christians it was behaviour, and following the teachings of Jesus that were the priority, God's grace was then avaliable to those who tried to follow these teachings as best they could.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, considering that you can't get much earlier than this document, i would suggest that the early Christians thought quite differently to you and that this concentration entirely on the sacrifice of Christ is a much later development.

I'm not saying that the crucifixion and resurrection weren't very important to these early Christians, but it seems clear from the Didache, and the Gospels themselves, that the rules set out in the Didache were the first step, the foundation of Christianity.

Does the Didache, whether it was written by the apostles or by an early bishop of the church, place trust in God's grace first on the list?

No, and from this we can surmise that to the earliest Christians it was behaviour, and following the teachings of Jesus that were the priority, God's grace was then avaliable to those who tried to follow these teachings as best they could.

And it was for behavior, not belief, that caused the earliest Christian communities to break fellowship with individuals or groups. Our tradition is that Marcion was excommunicated for raping a virgin and not for his beliefs.

 

[Quiddity]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

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?

It's a good read. Many latter fathers like Eusebius spoke of it.

Any lack of information is but little concern for those who hold to development of doctrine. Things developed through further clarification. The lack of Christology or anything of that sort only indicates the focus of the time.

In otherwords, it would be like searching for early documents showing that belief in God for Christians was essential. You'd be dumbfounded to find any writings on this. It was confusion and debates amongst the Church that produced writings.

The fewer the writings you find on the topic, the clearer it was for most Christians. There was no need to write about it.

 

[Smoke]

One can follow Christ's example and treat people as they want to be treated and not be saved.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.​

The real message He brought was that He was God in the flesh, come to die for our sins and rise the third day, that whoever believes that His death paid for all our sins as and accepts this free gift on faith is no longer under condemnation, but those who do not believe in Him are condemned already. He taught that no man comes to the Father but by Him, by repenting, turning from the sin of unbelief to belief in Christ alone for salvation, for salvation comes not from man, but from God, from Jesus Christ the Lord. All these religions that deny Christ died to pay for our sins, that He did not 'come in the flesh', that He is not God, that follow mans ways, that man thinks they can be saved, or if they believe in Christ, try to add something else they do for salvation, are not truely saved. Man cannot do anything whatsoever to save himself, except accept the gift. Salvation is from God, not man.

Those are the teachings of some Christians, but not the teachings of all Christians, and not the teachings of Jesus.

 

[nutshell]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem different than the teachings we have in the Bible. I admit I just skimmed it.

 

[sojourner]

This is boiling down to the old argument: "Are we saved by works, or by faith?" My concern here is that we are concerned at all about "who's in and who's out." Why do we all have to be gatekeepers? Seems to me that everyone's invited to the banquet, and that the banquet won't begin until everyone's seated at the table.

 

[Halcyon]

And it was for behavior, not belief, that caused the earliest Christian communities to break fellowship with individuals or groups. Our tradition is that Marcion was excommunicated for raping a virgin and not for his beliefs.

Wow, i'd never heard of that before.

But, then (after i did a little research) it seems that Irenaeus reports this information, and i personally don't trust a lot of what that man has to say.

Any lack of information is but little concern for those who hold to development of doctrine. Things developed through further clarification. The lack of Christology or anything of that sort only indicates the focus of the time.

The fewer the writings you find on the topic, the clearer it was for most Christians. There was no need to write about it.

Exactly. So clearly there was a need to summarise the basic moral teachings of Christ, and what was expected of every Christian, nevermind any differences in theology or Christology.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem different than the teachings we have in the Bible. I admit I just skimmed it.

Pretty much nuthell, its a handbook - the very basics, the sort of thing you'd hand out to prospective converts.

What i find interesting is the things early Christians found to be important when compared to modern Christians. Today it seems that much more emphasis is placed on faith and the gift of grace, than on the actual practices of Christianity.
For example, do you get angry when stolen from? According to the Didache and the Gospels you should not, in fact you should let a thief take what they want and even offer them extra.

Do you ever make a promise? According to the Didache you should not.

There are lists of behaviour to be avoided "deceit, arrogance, badness, assumptions, greed, shameful speech, jealousy, an overbearing nature, loftiness, pride;" This is the way of death, apparently.

It just seems, from my perspective, that today's Christians feel that it is ok to ignore teachings such as these (arrogant, preachy, prideful Christians seem to be ten-to-the-penny) so long as belief in Christ and his sacrifice is maintained.

This is boiling down to the old argument: "Are we saved by works, or by faith?" My concern here is that we are concerned at all about "who's in and who's out." Why do we all have to be gatekeepers? Seems to me that everyone's invited to the banquet, and that the banquet won't begin until everyone's seated at the table.

That's the thing though, if everyone can be seated at this banquet for simply acknowledging the host, in what way have they earned their place? What's the stop the liars, the murders and the general evil-doers of the world sitting next to the honest gentle folk?
If someone can be a Christian by faith, without following the Didache, what was the point of Christ's mission? It seems to me that many modern Christians are missing half the point.