The Didache

InLove

InLove

at peace
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
Texas
Hi and Peace to All Here--

I did a keyword search of the entire forum and did not find anything on this subject, but that does not necessarily mean it has not been introduced here before. My apologies if I missed something. If it is already here, it will most likely show up in the "Related Threads" reference.

Recently, I hit a vein of research that grew out of my results from an article someone posted in CR which involved a silly-sounding but nevertheless interesting device called "Belief-O-Matic" :D. I am still laughing over the name.

Well, my research led me to find out more about The Society of Friends--this led me to lots of different links including Peace Churches, Baptists, Anabaptists, The Scouting associations, Orthodox, Eastern, Catholic...LOL...just so many things including Bono.:) Either I am easily entertained, or this is rich!

Anyway, all this eventually led me to the subject of the Didache. I find it fascinating. Anyone care to comment and add to my research?

InPeace,
InLove
 
By the way--in reading over my O.P., I realize that it may sound like I take this lightly. I don't want to leave that impression. When I say "this is rich", I mean it. I am really interested in this subject.

InPeace,
InLove
 
Hi InLove –

An interesting document indeed. From a Catholic perspective, it adds weight to the Trinitarian argument (the Trinity is evident even then in Baptismal Confession), and as such is a aide-memoire to the Credal statements to which the Catechumen would have professed, in place by the 1st century.

Likewise the warnings against 'false prophets' shows that even in those days, there were others trying to get in on the act.

What it does show is that Christianity, even then, was organised and structured, with a Creed, doctrine and dogma.

Thomas
 
The Didache is one of the earliest Christian documents. It was part of the experience of the first Christians but was not included in Eusebius' Canon. I think it is a shame that it is not there as it provides us with perhaps the earliest description of the Eucharist as seen by the early Christians.

kiwimac
 
This seems to be a summary of Christ's teachings and the teachings of the disciples writings in the NT. It would be good to use as an introduction to new believers, I would think, those that are not yet grounded in the Word.
 
What is interesting to me is the extent of the regulations.

There are those that run around today screaming end of times due to our debauched nature and morals run amok.

In this document we see they specifically list in the commandment

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

Would this be written so boldly and clearly if witchraft, pederasty, abortion and killing babies wasn't common enough to e a problem?
 
kiwimac said:
I think it is a shame that it is not there as it provides us with perhaps the earliest description of the Eucharist as seen by the early Christians.
Click to expand...
Always interesting what we find to be 'Christian'. Ever been with Jews prior to a Shabbat or Passover feast? Kiddush, the prayer over the wine, the Rabbi or other raising the chalice as all repeat it together, the wine is either passed or each raises their little glass that had been poured and then he breaks the challah (bread) and passes half each way through the group...
 
That's the crux, isn't it?

The feat is an offering as old as man, it's primordial in that regard.
What renders it 'Christian' is the meaning.

Following from that, if we trace the line of post-Reformation doctrine, we see the Mystery reduced, step by step, as man rationalises it, according to himself.

Thomas
 
Hi Y'all--

I have windows open all across the taskbar. I like it.

Thanks, wil, for alerting me to what was right under my nose here at CR. (Kinda makes me go :eek::).) Sometimes I get caught up in the discussions and forget that this site has a lot of useful information in other places. J.H. has an old copy of The Orthodox Dictionary of the Christian Church, and I often turn to it when I feel the need to understand the history behind certain doctrines. Lots more reliable than wiki, for sure. But then wiki is interesting, too, simply because it is controversial. Not that orthodoxy isn't.:)

Which leads me to Eusebius. Actually, kiwi (not to be confused with wiki :D) did that. From what I can glean, he (Eusebius, not kiwimac) was actually under fire at Nicaea for being "too Orthodox"? I might be wrong, but it sounds to me like he was a believer in the separation of church and state, so to speak? Somewhere along the line, he must have found something he could live with, however, because doesn't he later speak quite favorably of Constantine? I'm confused. Obviously?

Thomas, part of the reason I am so fascinated by all of this is that with all the apparent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestanism (Baptist, in particular), they absolutely have so much in common from the earliest times. Some maintain that the Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with Baptists--that they were already doing the "priesthood of the believer" thing way before Luther came along. Thoughts? (I have no agenda here except to increase my understanding.)

Back to wil again--It doesn't surprise me that Jesus would have built upon the traditions of Israel in regard to establishing an ordinance of remembrance, just as it does not surprise nor trouble me that much of the text in the Old Testament nearly parallels pagan mythology (please don't send angry letters, anyone--I don't mean that it's all the same thing, only that perhaps God, in His wisdom, was more in touch with ancient thought than we are ;)).

Okay, well that pretty much sums up what I want to post for now. There's some other stuff in the Didache that caught my eye, though (maybe I need to let my pastor know that he should not be heating up the baptismal and wearing a wetsuit under his robe, but I'll save that for later :confused::).)

I welcome your ongoing comments.

InPeace,
InLove
 
InLove said:
Back to wil again--It doesn't surprise me that Jesus would have built upon the traditions of Israel in regard to establishing an ordinance of remembrance, just as it does not surprise nor trouble me that much of the text in the Old Testament nearly parallels pagan mythology (please don't send angry letters, anyone--I don't mean that it's all the same thing, only that perhaps God, in His wisdom, was more in touch with ancient thought than we are ;)).
Click to expand...
I think this revelation to me is just my lack of education....but I think it is a general lack of education, ie I don't think I'm alone.

The way I see it the wine and the bread, the celebration and the reflection, the prayer to all that is and their origins as Jews their communion with G-d and each other...nothing new, it was all normal. What was new was this blood and body twist. This the next one to take the bread, he's the one. So I all along did not know this whole sacremental wine toasting and breaking bread was part and parcel of normalcy...the way I was raised this was a particularly Christian thing. But as I've learned, it isn't, it is an Old testament thing, with the new testament added to it.

Another example is the whenever two are gathered....the Jews needed a minion (10) to worship...Jesus changed 10, to whenever 2...and of course there are always 2.

Now the one that I see attributed all the time is the two greatest commandments...when we also now know that yes this was a test of this speaker Jesus...and he passed with flying colors because he repeated the number one and number two commandments out of the 613 in the Jewish tradition. This was not any revelation or anything new in any way, as student and teacher he was aware of the greatest commandments. This is another thing that I grew up thinking was a Christian thing...that he broke the mold with that answer...only to find out later it was the correct answer for Jewish eyes and ears as well.
 
Hi InLove –

History is fascinating, isn't it?

Thomas, part of the reason I am so fascinated by all of this is that with all the apparent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestanism (Baptist, in particular), they absolutely have so much in common from the earliest times.

The Fundamental Difference between Catholics and Protestants is Tradition, or precisely the Church's position as the sole authority on questions of Scripture. So we're Scripture and Tradition – the Reformers are Scripture alone.

(Big issue: who decided what is scripture and what isn't? Tradition!)

The cause of the Reformation was primarily the emergence of the idea of 'nationalism' – it is notable that the Reformers flourished only in those countries where the monarchy was weak, and where the monarchy vacillated or was divided, in France and England for instance, there was a bloodbath in the ensuing power struggle in which 'religion' was the excuse.

Some maintain that the Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with Baptists--that they were already doing the "priesthood of the believer" thing way before Luther came along.

Well, there were the Hussites and Waldensians of the previous century ... there is the trend of humanism emerging also in European philosophical thought ... but I don't think there's anything like a 'Baptist doctrine' until post-Reformation. They're right in saying they didn't have anything to do with it, but I'm not sure they pre-dated it – in fact I thought they were post-Reform – they took advantage of the chaos.

The Baptists have staked a claim to Apostolic Authority, claiming they are as old as the Orthodox Church, but that, I would suggest, is a thin case. I'm sure all would be in agreement with me in saying that if the Baptists were around as any kind of significant fashion, then 'my boys' would have been down on them like a ton of bricks, as we were everyone else! Basically, if they were around, a theologian somewhere would have denounced them!

Also there is no evidence of them in the Greek East ... they seem a particularly European phenomena.

(Hey ... and why is it the Roman Catholic Church gets the blame for all this doctrine and dogma? All the theological heavyweights of the early centuries were Greek – the Church was Greek for centuries ... how come the Orthodox Church never comes in for any stick? But that's another argument.)

Once the authority of Rome was broken by Luther, the gate was open ... even Luther decried what happened next ...

Calvin et al fought for the freedom to interpret Scripture according to themselves, and once they got it, became most 'catholic' in their violent insistence that they had the only rightful interpretation ... talk about pots and kettles!

+++

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
(Big issue: who decided what is scripture and what isn't? Tradition!)
Click to expand...

Good point, Thomas. I really have never thought of it that way.

Thomas said:
Well, there were the Hussites and Waldensians of the previous century ... there is the trend of humanism emerging also in European philosophical thought ... but I don't think there's anything like a 'Baptist doctrine' until post-Reformation. They're right in saying they didn't have anything to do with it, but I'm not sure they pre-dated it – in fact I thought they were post-Reform – they took advantage of the chaos.
Click to expand...

I haven't found any written history to the contrary. But there is an oral tradition (there's that word again :)) among some Baptist sects, that claims direct spiritual and organizational descent from the first circle of believers. Personally, I don't know. But when I consider that even many sincere and learned theologians often disagree about what happened concerning the mixed languages present at Pentecost, then I tend to wonder just how many different ways God may have given us to understand His basic message of truth, yet in accordance with our own abilities and capacities to comprehend, based on our various experiences, which He would know about. (Sorry for that awkward sentence.) Anyway, I can't help but wonder at the wonder of it all. Hey--isn't that a song? ;)

Thomas said:
...I'm sure all would be in agreement with me in saying that if the Baptists were around as any kind of significant fashion, then 'my boys' would have been down on them like a ton of bricks, as we were everyone else! Basically, if they were around, a theologian somewhere would have denounced them!
Click to expand...

(Insert giggle regarding your good-natured terminology.) Yeah--you're probably right, there, Thomas. But as the story might go, might they have been flying under the radar? I'm not arguing to fact, just pondering.

Thomas said:
(Hey ... and why is it the Roman Catholic Church gets the blame for all this doctrine and dogma? All the theological heavyweights of the early centuries were Greek – the Church was Greek for centuries ... how come the Orthodox Church never comes in for any stick? But that's another argument.)
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Sounds like an interesting thread. ;)

Thomas said:
Calvin et al fought for the freedom to interpret Scripture according to themselves, and once they got it, became most 'catholic' in their violent insistence that they had the only rightful interpretation ... talk about pots and kettles!
Click to expand...

Agreed!

InPeace,
InLove

P.S. I see some others have posted since Thomas. I am kind of a slowpoke sometimes, but I'm reading them all. And I didn't respond to Dondi yet either, but I plan to. I know--plans--don't laugh. :D
 
Mercy! Thanks for the information, guys. I feel very, very small in this big picture. I knew there was a lot to gather, but I wonder if one could ever gather enough information--let alone indisputable historical facts--to really determine how all the different views actually evolved. I guess that most of it can be traced according to someone's records, but then some of those records will (surprise!) conflict.

I'm still climbing trees and researching the Bohemians--it is truly a delight to do so. I just wish I didn't have to stop and chop and carry so often. They say this happens before and after enlightenment, but I think it is possible that it might actually be enlightening in itself. :)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Thomas said:
talk about pots and kettles!
Click to expand...


Well, I don't really see what it has to do with the issues raised but, a kettle is a kitchen item, depending of course on the cultrure and geographical location. In word kettle can have a variety of meanings, in England, Ireland and in Canada, a kettle is a device used to quickly heat water for hot drinks, such as coffee, tea, hot chocolate, malt drinks and many others. It is usually constructed from durable plastic or stainless steel. The power of the kettle comes from the electrical mains of the house. The power heats and boils the inside of the kettle where the water is contained, which you can simply aquire from your kitchen sink. Once it has reached boiling point the kettle amazingly automatically deactivates to prevent the water boiling away or damaging the heating element inside the kettle.

There are also stove-mounted kettles that are used almost the same way but the power source comes from the stove. This cannot automatically deactivate and alerts the user the water is boiled via a steam whistle in the spout of the stove kettle.

Now... With pots, there are many many types of pots, you have pots that you can insert plants into for decoration. Then simply fill the space with soil, you have pots for using with food, and also pots for brewing before mentioned hot drinks, ideally tea... Now before we get down to the nitty gritty details, are there any questions so far? Raise your hands....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top