The Didache

[InLove]

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" . 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

[Francis king]

whats the didache?

[InLove]

Hi Francis--

This from Wikipedia, which one must take with a grain of one's own salt, of course.

Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

InPeace,
InLove

[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

[wil]

It is on the CR apocrypha page

I've read it before somewhere along the way. I remember thinking it like a preacher in your pocket.

[Francis king]

thanks to both inlove and wil here... now I know what didache is

[Thomas]

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

[kiwimac]

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

[Dondi]

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.

[wil]

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?

[wil]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

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.

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...

[Thomas]

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

[InLove]

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 .) 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 ) 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 .)

I welcome your ongoing comments.

InPeace,
InLove

[wil]

Originally Posted by InLove

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 ).

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.

[Thomas]

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