The Didache: Proof of Deviation From Christ's Teachings by Apostolic Fathers

[concretecamper]

He’s talking about the New Testament not the Septuagint.

It appears he doesn't know the difference. Particularly since we are talking about Timothy in his youth. Not when he was a discipline of Paul.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That wasn't the point of 2 Tim 3:16.

But the point was that there were NT scriptures when Paul wrote to Timothy.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It appears he doesn't know the difference. Particularly since we are talking about Timothy in his youth. Not when he was a discipline of Paul.

It’s really hard to say. According to Paul’s letters to Timothy which were near the end of Paul’s ministry Timothy was still pretty young.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wait. Hold your horses a bit there.
The verse says, "whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming".
So, when this man of lawlessness appears he will not be done away with.
The second coming of Christ is future. Agreed?

Therefore, The man of lawlessness is revealed... Yes. Explanation?

No he is not revealed because there is no temple for him to sit in and claim to be God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay, so persons who do not love the truth are deceived.
So, tell me more about this.
When are they deceived, and what are those deceptive means he uses to mislead persons?
Please explain.
All this occurs after the one who restrains him is out of the way, so that is an important detail in knowing when all this takes place.

Apparently there will have to be a temple of God before he is revealed and he will deceive them thru signs and false wonders.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'll answer your question, once we get all the details.
Remember. You are filling them in for both of us.

The second temple was destroyed in 70AD. What temple of God can he possibly sit in and claim to be God? If there is no temple this prophecy can’t have started 2,000 years ago.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thank you.



Apostasy? What's that?
Can you please explain what scriptural basis you have for referring to the man of lawlessness as "the antichrist"?
Are they not many antichrists... plural? 1 John 2:18, 19


Unless you see the book of Daniel mentioned there, you are not doing a verse by verse explanation, but are inserting your interpretation.
Please do not do that. I am not asking for your interpretation. Just the explanation.

You can explain what the man of lawlessness opposes and exalts himself above, and what the temple of God is that he takes a seat in.
All those details are what's important.
You are doing good otherwise though.
Thank you.


Thank you.
He is being restrained from taking his seat in the temple of God.
We'll leave a question mark there at What restrains him from doing so? until we get some more details on the subject matter previously mentioned.


Wait. Hold your horses a bit there.
The verse says, "whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming".
So, when this man of lawlessness appears he will not be done away with.
The second coming of Christ is future. Agreed?

Therefore, The man of lawlessness is revealed... Yes. Explanation?


Okay, so persons who do not love the truth are deceived.
So, tell me more about this.
When are they deceived, and what are those deceptive means he uses to mislead persons?
Please explain.
All this occurs after the one who restrains him is out of the way, so that is an important detail in knowing when all this takes place.


I'll answer your question, once we get all the details.
Remember. You are filling them in for both of us.

Ok just to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that this man of lawlessness that Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2 caused the apostasy during the first century of Christianity? This man of lawlessness whom Christ will kill at His second coming? So this man is almost 2,000 years old?

 

[concretecamper]

But the point was that there were NT scriptures when Paul wrote to Timothy.

But Paul referenced the scripture knew in his youth. Timothy was born around 17 AD. That pretty much riles out any writing that would eventually be included in the NT.

 

[Halbhh]

in the OT about Jesus being raised on the third day

More interesting for us I think is the famous ''sign of Jonah" moment....

It's such a dramatic moment, because some were demanding proof/evidence from Jesus....just like many people do today -- "where's the evidence?", "where's your proof?" etc.

(or the other side of this same mistake is when a believing Christian thinks they can create saving faith by offering evidence/proof. e.g. -- the mistaken idea: 'if I just show the evidence about Christ or God or miracles, or the Flood, etc., then I can save people' -- but that is not how saving faith ever begins.)

Let's look at that again:

38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. ...

 

[PloverWing]

I believe it's important to give that some thought. What do you think?

In light of the post linked to here:

I believe this post answers your questions.

I believe that you're trying to persuade us to abandon historic Christianity. Sorry, not interested.

I hadn't read your posts elsewhere, but now that I have, I'm done with this thread.

 

[CoreyD]

Apostasy? What's that?
Can you please explain what scriptural basis you have for referring to the man of lawlessness as "the antichrist"?
Are they not many antichrists... plural? 1 John 2:18, 19

No Paul is referring to a specific man of lawlessness that is prophesied to come before Christ returns whom Christ will kill with the “sword coming out of His mouth”. You’ve already demonstrated that you have a significant understanding of the scriptures, there’s no way that you don’t see this.

What are you saying no to?
There are not more than one antichrist? Are you disagreeing with John?
I did not say anything against Paul saying the man of lawlessness is to come.

CoreyD said:
Wait. Hold your horses a bit there.
The verse says, "whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming".
So, when this man of lawlessness appears he will not be done away with.
The second coming of Christ is future. Agreed?

Therefore, The man of lawlessness is revealed... Yes. Explanation?

No he is not revealed because there is no temple for him to sit in and claim to be God.

Did you not go to the beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2, which is commendable? Why did you go from verse 1? Was it to get the context? Very good.
Why not apply the context?
...we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Paul links the man of lawlessness with deceiving the brothers and sisters, which we see as we read further down.
Paul is warning that this great deception is coming - the apostasy, but it is being restrained by someone.
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
Then he will be revealed.

Why would you think this is one man, and that Paul is talking about a temple in Jerusalem?
Could it be, a preconceived idea, based on a belief about 70 AD?
Paul is not talking about Jews, and their temple. Why would Paul be here talking to Christians, about a deception - a great apostasy - a lawless one lifting himself up above those taking the lead, obviously?
This whole conversation is to the brothers and sisters in the Church, about what will affect them directly, and what is allowed by Jesus, in order to expose those who do not love the truth.
This is not about Jews and their temple.
Christ done wid dat long time. He already sealed their fate.

So, Paul revealing to the brothers and sisters that the man of lawlessness will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God, resonates with the brothers, since they already know that there are men in the Church trying to take the position of the apostles... even though they are present.
So what about when they are not present? When they are "taken out of the way"? Acts 20:29
Would that not allow those "super apostles" to take over - "exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God"?

I guarantee that if persons were to let go of the presupposition they have, and just analyze the scriptures in isolation, as I was trying to get you to do, they will see this clearly.
Or maybe not. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12

Ok just to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that this man of lawlessness that Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2 caused the apostasy during the first century of Christianity? This man of lawlessness whom Christ will kill at His second coming? So this man is almost 2,000 years old?

Close enough.
The man of lawlessness is not one man... Not that that changes the results, so I don't need to spell that out for you.
The apostasy is the rising up of men in the Church, after the apostles - who were holding them back, - are gone.
These men take over, and set their own doctrines in stone.
As prophesied...

• Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
• 2 Peter 2:1 Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
• 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, whereby we know that it is the last hour.

This is not hard at all.
It's just as simple as letting the scriptures speak.
Removing the preconceived ideas. Cleaning the slate of the mind, and looking at the scriptures.

You will only see a flaw when you start questioning your own ideas... Like... So this man is almost 2,000 years old?
Nah. can't be. not based on my calculations that I worked out from this , about this .
Yes. There are ideas, which you would need to scratch, if you want to get the scriptures to come together flawlessly.

Yes, as early as when the apostles moved off the scene, the man of lawlessness set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
So, Yes, the Church was taken over by apostates - heresy.

John, the last apostle alive said it was the last hour.

Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, whereby we know that it is the last hour.​

Were there some in the Church who was against it? Of course, there were some who wanted to stick to Christ teachings, but how do you go up against savage wolves that will not spare the flock?
I don't have to tell you this. You have a pattern branded in history, that tells you how that works.

Spoiler

Thanks for taking part in the exercise. I appreciated it.
Even if you do not agree, at least you understand this, and you can see the scriptures used in their clear, simple, unaltered form.

Are there any objections, or questions?

 

[CoreyD]

I believe that you're trying to persuade us to abandon historic Christianity. Sorry, not interested.

I hadn't read your posts elsewhere, but now that I have, I'm done with this thread.

I am not trying to persuade anyone here. I don't have that much patience.
However, I do want what God wants for you. nothing more. I leave that to you and him though.
I am sharing truth. That's all.

Peace.

 

[Lukaris]

A probable pitfall of incorrect analysis is inventing incorrect legalism. I previously provided the example of saying that the Didache allegedly diverged from the Lord’s teaching on prayer because it states to say the Lord’s Prayer three times daily. Well that was established Jewish practice and the Didache instruction is actually a most simplified observance ( following Psalm 55:17 & Daniel 6:10-11).

Another example is the solidly Biblical details of the Lord’s commandment “thou shalt not murder” ( the details are from scripture themselves). There is one in the details that is not precisely ( word for word but implicitly true) is that abortion is forbidden.

Here is the quote from the Didache:


2 {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued;


If we are going to apply incorrect analysis of the Didache according to patterns already indicated, we might say that the Didache is being tricky with scripture. This is more incorrect analysis and incorrect legalism.


There are opinions that state the Bible does not teach being pro life for the unborn. Usually Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13-15 are prominently & properly cited for Biblical pro life faith but many will deny this. Well the instruction in the Didache is properly faithful and a valuable witness to the pro life Gospel.



edit note: in original reference to Psalm 55, I had incorrectly posted verse 11 when I should have posted verse 17. Corrected above as indicated here also as Psalm 55:17 in reference to Jewish prayer practice 3 times a day and saying the Lord’s Prayer 3 times daily in the Didache.

 

[BNR32FAN]

More interesting for us I think is the famous ''sign of Jonah" moment....

It's such a dramatic moment, because some were demanding proof/evidence from Jesus....just like many people do today -- "where's the evidence?", "where's your proof?" etc.

(or the other side of this same mistake is when a believing Christian thinks they can create saving faith by offering evidence/proof. e.g. -- the mistaken idea: 'if I just show the evidence about Christ or God or miracles, or the Flood, etc., then I can save people' -- but that is not how saving faith ever begins.)

Let's look at that again:

38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. ...

I have no idea what you’re talking about. This doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the post you replied to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What are you saying no to?
There are not more than one antichrist? Are you disagreeing with John?
I did not say anything against Paul saying the man of lawlessness is to come.

CoreyD said:
Wait. Hold your horses a bit there.
The verse says, "whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming".
So, when this man of lawlessness appears he will not be done away with.
The second coming of Christ is future. Agreed?

Therefore, The man of lawlessness is revealed... Yes. Explanation?

Did you not go to the beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2, which is commendable? Why did you go from verse 1? Was it to get the context? Very good.
Why not apply the context?
...we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Paul links the man of lawlessness with deceiving the brothers and sisters, which we see as we read further down.
Paul is warning that this great deception is coming - the apostasy, but it is being restrained by someone.
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
Then he will be revealed.

Why would you think this is one man, and that Paul is talking about a temple in Jerusalem?
Could it be, a preconceived idea, based on a belief about 70 AD?
Paul is not talking about Jews, and their temple. Why would Paul be here talking to Christians, about a deception - a great apostasy - a lawless one lifting himself up above those taking the lead, obviously?
This whole conversation is to the brothers and sisters in the Church, about what will affect them directly, and what is allowed by Jesus, in order to expose those who do not love the truth.
This is not about Jews and their temple.
Christ done wid dat long time. He already sealed their fate.

So, Paul revealing to the brothers and sisters that the man of lawlessness will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God, resonates with the brothers, since they already know that there are men in the Church trying to take the position of the apostles... even though they are present.
So what about when they are not present? When they are "taken out of the way"? Acts 20:29
Would that not allow those "super apostles" to take over - "exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God"?

I guarantee that if persons were to let go of the presupposition they have, and just analyze the scriptures in isolation, as I was trying to get you to do, they will see this clearly.
Or maybe not. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12


Close enough.
The man of lawlessness is not one man... Not that that changes the results, so I don't need to spell that out for you.
The apostasy is the rising up of men in the Church, after the apostles - who were holding them back, - are gone.
These men take over, and set their own doctrines in stone.
As prophesied...

• Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
• 2 Peter 2:1 Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
• 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, whereby we know that it is the last hour.

This is not hard at all.
It's just as simple as letting the scriptures speak.
Removing the preconceived ideas. Cleaning the slate of the mind, and looking at the scriptures.

You will only see a flaw when you start questioning your own ideas... Like... So this man is almost 2,000 years old?
Nah. can't be. not based on my calculations that I worked out from this , about this .
Yes. There are ideas, which you would need to scratch, if you want to get the scriptures to come together flawlessly.

Yes, as early as when the apostles moved off the scene, the man of lawlessness set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
So, Yes, the Church was taken over by apostates - heresy.

John, the last apostle alive said it was the last hour.

Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, whereby we know that it is the last hour.​

Were there some in the Church who was against it? Of course, there were some who wanted to stick to Christ teachings, but how do you go up against savage wolves that will not spare the flock?
I don't have to tell you this. You have a pattern branded in history, that tells you how that works.

Spoiler

Thanks for taking part in the exercise. I appreciated it.
Even if you do not agree, at least you understand this, and you can see the scriptures used in their clear, simple, unaltered form.

Are there any objections, or questions?

Oh trust me I already knew your interpretation of the verse a long time ago. You’re taking an obvious prophetic passage about the antichrist who will come in the end times and twisting it into something it is not saying. The man of lawlessness is one man not several men and this one man will be killed by Christ when He returns. So your interpretation obviously DOES NOT line up with what the passage actually says. Here’s a few more problems with your interpretation.

Christ’s plan to preach the gospel of the kingdom to all nations failed in the first century of the Church.

Christ was wrong when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Your conspiracy theory requires thousands of believers who endured persecution and even martyrdom for their faith, who were spread out thousands of miles apart to all agree to preaching a false gospel and there’s not a shred of evidence of any opposition anywhere in the history of the church or even secular history. I mean this is almost as inconceivable as the conspiracy to hide the flat earth. Either all of these people who couldn’t have possibly known each other agreed to preaching a false gospel or the entire church was killed without any shred of evidence while Jesus watched His Church disappear from the face of the earth long before it had accomplished His task of spreading the gospel to all nations. None of these scenarios sound even remotely plausible.

So your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 is not as viable as you claim it is for numerous reasons. It seems to have originated from a hostility towards the Catholic Church instead of a rational assessment of the passage itself in conjunction with the other parallel prophetic passages regarding the antichrist.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah from what I understand almost half of the church fell into the Arianism heresy but we have evidence of an opposition to that heresy. Where’s the evidence of opposition to reformed theology? There wasn’t any because it’s wasn’t invented for over a thousand years later.

Most of the bishops had become Arian, with many orthodox bishops forcibly replaced. This didn’t happen quietly. Folks like Athanasius resisted mightily. And Athanasius is rightly renouned for his resistance. But lots of plain believers resisted mightily as well, recognizing that a different religion was being foisted upon them. They may not have had the theological acumen to explain things as was done later at Nicea, but they could smell a rat. Arianism was applied top down and the Sensus Fidelium prevented it from winning.

Of course there are scattered Arians today too. And Sabellians and Gnostics and all manner of strange old things the Church has already contended with and new strange things too. But there’s always resistance to those alien things. The Church always was conservative since its founding, testing everything, rejecting things alien to Jesus and his apostles. The magnitude of the apostasy needed for the OP to be true just isn’t historically there. Nor is the inevitable resistance to that apostasy. What is there is the historical record of the Church opposing first the Gnostics and then every other bit player heresy from this or that direction. Somebody should read Ignatius of Lyon’s ‘Against the Heresies’ and they’ll get a clearer picture of reality and maybe be a little less likely to be counted as a modern proponent of one of those silly old heresies.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Most of the bishops had become Arian, with many orthodox bishops forcibly replaced. This didn’t happen quietly. Folks like Athanasius resisted mightily. And Athanasius is rightly renouned for his resistance. But lots of plain believers resisted mightily as well, recognizing that a different religion was being foisted upon them. They may not have had the theological acumen to explain things as was done later at Nicea, but they could smell a rat. Arianism was applied top down and the Sensus Fidelium prevented it from winning.

Of course there are scattered Arians today too. And Sabellians and Gnostics and all manner of strange old things the Church has already contended with and new strange things too. But there’s always resistance to those alien things. The Church always was conservative since its founding, testing everything, rejecting things alien to Jesus and his apostles. The magnitude of the apostasy needed for the OP to be true just isn’t historically there. Nor is the inevitable resistance to that apostasy. What is there is the historical record of the Church opposing first the Gnostics and then every other bit player heresy from this or that direction. Somebody should read Ignatius of Lyon’s ‘Against the Heresies’ and they’ll get a clearer picture of reality and maybe be a little less likely to be counted as a modern proponent of one of those silly old heresies.

Yeah I mean there’s historical evidence of countless heresies the church has encountered and the magnitude that the OP is suggesting would the biggest heresy Christianity ever faced and there’s no evidence of it at all? Like I said before it’s about as plausible as the worldwide conspiracy to hide the flat earth. It just isn’t logically reasonable.

 

[The Liturgist]

A probable pitfall of incorrect analysis is inventing incorrect legalism. I previously provided the example of saying that the Didache allegedly diverged from the Lord’s teaching on prayer because it states to say the Lord’s Prayer three times daily. Well that was established Jewish practice and the Didache instruction is actually a most simplified observance ( following Psalm 55:11 & Daniel 6:10-11).

Another example is the solidly Biblical details of the Lord’s commandment “thou shalt not murder” ( the details are from scripture themselves). There is one in the details that is not precisely ( word for word but implicitly true) is that abortion is forbidden.

Here is the quote from the Didache:


2 {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued;


If we are going to apply incorrect analysis of the Didache according to patterns already indicated, we might say that the Didache is being tricky with scripture. This is more incorrect analysis and incorrect legalism.


There are opinions that state the Bible does not teach being pro life for the unborn. Usually Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13-15 are prominently & properly cited for Biblical pro life faith but many will deny this. Well the instruction in the Didache is properly faithful and a valuable witness to the pro life Gospel.

I can’t believe that anyone would take offense at the common sense approach of the Didache. But then again, the entire idea of a Great Apostasy strikes me as unscriptural and unreasonable, since Matthew 16:18 clearly indicates that it is impossible, at least until the end times. There is nothing in scripture that would suggest the Church would become corrupted until the Radical Reformers and Restorationists “restored” it in the 16th-19th centuries. Restorationism in particular was quite a problem - of the denominations it produced, only those connected with the Stone/Campbell movement are worthy of the title, because they revived weekly celebration of the Eucharist, which had been lost in several Protestant denominations, with the exception of some Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, albeit with a deeply problematic anti-creedalism, but Restorationism also gave us the Mormons and J/Ws and several other non-Christian religions which claim to be restoring the early church, which is not good at all. Indeed I feel a distinction must be stressed between Christian restorationists like the Stone/Campbell movement, the Plymouth Brethren, the Evangelical Quakers, et al, and non-Christian restorationists like the Mormons and J/Ws and some liberal Quakers.

Also the Didache is important, as it is the earliest Patristic document we have that condemns homosexuality (specifically the prohibition on corrupting boys, which can be read as also applying to seducing young men who we would regard as above the age of consent). After this the next explicit condemnation I am aware of is found in Canon 73 of St. Basil the Great and I think Canon 5 of his younger brother St. Gregory of Nyssa (apparently this was a major issue in Cappadocia, enough to require specific canons). Then we find much more detailed, perhaps a bit too detailed, prohibitions, in the canons of St. John the Faster. But these are important collectively for refuting the idea claimed by some proponents of Queer Theology that the early church was not opposed to homosexuality.

This goes along with various attempts to make homosexuals of various pairs of male saints, such as Saints Sergius and Bacchus, and Saints Cosmas and Damian, which is extremely offensive to traditional Christians whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or traditional Anglican or Lutheran.

 

[FenderTL5]

Certainly..

,,It being a difference as early as the first century, upon the death of the apostles, it is proof of the fact that the apostles' words came to past, regarding a deviation from Christ's teachings.

Your premise has a fatal flaw. The Didache is the teaching of the 12 Apostles written at the time of the Apostles. What you suggest is that the Apostles themselves deviated from the Apostles' teaching.. with the Apostles' Teaching. It's nonsense. Whether it's unintentional or willful, I don't know, but It's ignorant.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your premise has a fatal flaw. The Didache is the teaching of the 12 Apostles written at the time of the apostles. What you suggest is that the Apostles themselves deviated from the Apostles teaching.. with the Apostles teaching. It's nonsense. Whether it's unintentional or willful, I don't know but It's ignorant.

Indeed, this is entirely correct. The Didache is not a Patristic work but an Apostolic one. There is also the variant text known as the Didascalia which is sometimes included in Ethiopian Orthodox bibles as a sort of appendix.