• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What is your question?

It’s not calling me out if you ask me a question where you sincerely are interested in my opinion or historical knowledge of a subject, as far as I am aware.

Rather, my understanding is that a call out would be if I tagged someone and challenged them over a remark they had made in, say, another thread, in a manner that was belligerent and so on, but of course if you have concerns about what it is you should ask the mods.

But I don’t feel called out here, so if you are curious as to what I think, or if @FenderTL5 is curious as to what I think, feel free to ask.
I had no question.
@FenderTL5 has the mistaken view that I am responding to you as a Catholic.
So, I was asking him to ask you... Wait. Why am I telling you this. :D Did you not read it?

The Orthodox are not Roman Catholic and the Dark Ages didn’t even happen to those areas of the world where the Orthodox church was predominant.

The Dark Ages specifically refers to the condition in Western Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, leading up to the collapse of the civil government of Rome in 600 AD, which left St. Gregory Diologos, who is a Roman Catholic who is venerated by the Eastern Orthodox, actually one of the last Roman Catholics to be venerated by the Eastern Orthodox before the schism, as the only high ranking public official left, and thus he was forced to negotiate with the Ostrogothic rulers who had conquered the city on behalf of the people of Rome to save as many lives as possible. Things were very grim. Then Charlemagne came along, and then the Medieval period and so on.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Empire remained relatively stable, and a center of learning and cultural sophistication, and it continued to spread the Christian religion aggressively (and during this time the Western church did what it could as well, for example, converting the Angles, a tribe from an area which is now part of Denmark, who had conquered Britannia - indeed, all three Danish ethnic groups would wind up conquering England, along with the Saxons of Germany, in that the Angles were followed by the Jutes from Jutland, then the Saxons and then the Danish Vikings, who established the Danelaw ruled from Jarvik, which later became known as York, a beautiful town which I have visited, and home to the National Railway Museum in the UK as well as the splendid Yorkminster Cathedral (actually I visited York on one day in 2002, and the next day visited Brighton in the morning and Canterbury in the evening). But while that was going on in the West, the Eastern churches spread the faith throughout Eastern Europe, and to Eastern Scandinavia, and to the Southern Slavs and Bulgarians and finally the Northern Slavic people, the Kievan Rus, who are the ancestors of the Russians and Ukrainians (which is why i am so distressed by that war; its really more like the US Civil War than anything else).

The Byzantine civilization was glorious and impressive, and after losing some territories to the Ummayid Caliphate, managed to repel them using science, in the form of Greek Fire, a pyrophoric chemical weapon which could start fires on enemy ships which could not be extinguished, using flamethrowers, and which was also devastating against troops, and in this manner, and by forming alliances with the Kingdom of Armenia and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, the Byzantine Empire was able to hold out until 1453, and a small part of it, Trebizond, on the Black Sea, was able to hold out even longer.

The Eastern Churches were never subordinate to the Pope of Rome, and indeed in many cases the reverse actually happened. For example, Pope Honorius I was censured post mortem by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod for supporting the heresy of Monothelitism. He is the only Bishop of Rome who was ever convicted of heresy by an ecumenical council.

Some Orthodox churches have been out of communion with Rome since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (namely the Oriental Orthodox, that is to say, the Copts (Egyptians), Syriac Orthodox (Historically speakers of Aramaic dialects who live in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, the Holy Land and especially India, where they are known as St. Thomas Christians because the Gospel was first brought there by St .Thomas the Apostle, who was martyred by an enraged maharaja who threw a javelin at him). The rest broke off communion with Rome in the eleventh century.

Then when the Crusades happened, these had a devastating effect on the Orthodox Christians, indeed, in the First Crusade, the Crusaders even engaged in cannibalism of the local Christians when their supplies ran low.

So indeed, the Orthodox are not Roman Catholics, we disagree with them on many issues of theology, and it is very offensive to us to be grouped together with them.

Also, by the way, the period of time while Western Europe was in the so-called Dark Ages is still quite interesting, although not as interesting as what was going on in the Byzantine Empire at the same time, which was indeed very much in its prime, to the extent that during the Dark Ages, the Byzantine Empire actually occupied some portions of the former Western Roman Empire in order to reduce the suffering of the people, who were suffering the depradations of various Gothic tribes that had been converted to Arianism, which is the anti-Christian religion that originated with the heretic Arius in the early fourth century, and indeed, it was the cause for convening the Council of Nicaea, to ratify the decision of the Church of Alexandria to depose Arius.

However, Emperor Constantine’s son Constantius was converted to Arianism through the sinister machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop who did not attend Nicaea but rather lurked in the shadows and climbed the power structures in Constantinople, and the result of this was an almost continual persecution of Christians by the Arian emperors from the death of St. Constantine until the death of Emperor Valens, who was the last of the Arian Emperors, at which time St. Theodosius became Emperor, around 379 AD, and the Second Ecumenical Synod was convened in Constantinople to address additional theological issues that had come up, such as Pneumaatomacchianism - denial of the deity and the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity.
Why did you sit and type out all of this L? I did not ask a question.
You don't understand why I made that comment - "This is the 21st century. Not the Dark Ages."

That statement is saying everyone living today knows Church history, unlike those living in the Dark Ages.
Sorry you misunderstood.... and spent all that time typing. Oh dear.
I hope it was just a copy paste. Tell me it was.
I'd feel a lot better.

Well, they are Christians today, and from what I have been able to ascertain about them from before the Restoration, I think they were Christians.
Thank you. that's all I wanted to know.
Yet, they were burned alive, because they disagreed with "other Christians".
I'm glad you do not approve of such conduct. You don't think Jesus approved, do you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
21,138
18,117
Flyoverland
✟1,195,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Yes, but it did not matter who I was interacting with.
The difference only became a factor, when I responded to this comment.

It is not disproven simply because you say so, and I'll take the understanding of the Church over an internet contrarian every time. ymmv​

With the mistaken view that I was communicating with Catholics.
I was mistaken, but the thread isn't about Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, or Catholics.
I was simply making a point.
If the point does not apply to "the number of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox", they do not have to dwell on it.

Unless they feel they are party to it.
You don't know what you don't know and it shows. You are being schooled and you don't even know it. Your attack on the Didache, by which you hoped you could attack Catholics also attacks the Orthodox because we accept the same Church Fathers and have the same creeds. So while they are not Catholic, and not subject to the sins of a few Catholics, you are attacking them too. You attack their sacramental practice and their creeds, which we share, in your attack on the Catholic Church by attacking the Didache. Not that your attack on the Didache has any legs, but it's like shooting blanks at Catholics and the paper shards of the blanks are also hitting the Orthodox who are standing near us Catholics. Maybe you can play us against each other. Better for you if you convert honestly and either become Catholic or Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it well:
756 "Often, too, the Church is called the building of God. The Lord compared himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner-stone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles and from it the Church receives solidity and unity. This edifice has many names to describe it: the house of God in which his family dwells; the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling-place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. As living stones we here on earth are built into it. It is this holy city that is seen by John as it comes down out of heaven from God when the world is made anew, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.148
So you agree Jesus is the foundation cornerstone. Not Peter. ...and it is on Jesus the Church is built. Not Peter. Isaiah 28:16, 17; Psalm 118:22; Matthew 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Corinthians 3:11
...and all the apostles are the foundation. Not Peter, alone. Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-9; Revelation 21:14 ?
That's fine.

The thread is about the Didache, and the proof that it demonstrates that the Apostolic fathers deviated from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
Would you like to weigh in on this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You don't know what you don't know and it shows. You are being schooled and you don't even know it.
I do see the attempts, but I know that's because you don't know that I am already "schooled".

Your attack on the Didache, by which you hoped you could attack Catholics also attacks the Orthodox because we accept the same Church Fathers and have the same creeds. So while they are not Catholic, and not subject to the sins of a few Catholics, you are attacking them too. You attack their sacramental practice and their creeds, which we share, in your attack on the Catholic Church by attacking the Didache. Not that your attack on the Didache has any legs, but it's like shooting blanks at Catholics and the paper shards of the blanks are also hitting the Orthodox who are standing near us Catholics.
Thanks for that schooling.
It's not entirely accurate, but some bits are, and I agree with those. Thanks.

Maybe you can play us against each other. Better for you if you convert honestly and either become Catholic or Orthodox.
Knowing what you know, I'm not surprised you would say that, considering.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it well:
756 "Often, too, the Church is called the building of God. The Lord compared himself to the stone which the builders rejected, but which was made into the corner-stone. On this foundation the Church is built by the apostles and from it the Church receives solidity and unity. This edifice has many names to describe it: the house of God in which his family dwells; the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling-place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. As living stones we here on earth are built into it. It is this holy city that is seen by John as it comes down out of heaven from God when the world is made anew, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.148
I wonder if @BNR32FAN would agree with this :
the household of God in the Spirit; the dwelling-place of God among men; and, especially, the holy temple. This temple, symbolized in places of worship built out of stone, is praised by the Fathers and, not without reason, is compared in the liturgy to the Holy City, the New Jerusalem.

We were looking at 2 Thessalonians 2:4
who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

He said...
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.
How would you answer address that question?
Would you say this is the same temple mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Can you explain your response please.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,430
6,382
Nashville TN
✟689,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Not only have you lost track of the conversation.
You seem to be trying to hang on to something that is not factual.
Why?
It is indeed a fact that you have repeatedly tried to lay the errors of some post schism Roman Catholics onto those in this thread that are Orthodox.
I'm well aware that not everyone understands the Orthodox Church. That's understandable. However, you seemingly have chosen to remain willfully ignorant about even surface level basics and differences. Your post #140 shows you still don't get it.
You don't know what you don't know and it shows.
chevy is100% correct with that statement and so far, it appears you have no interest in discovering what you don't know.

btw, I said the Liturgist is very generous in sharing his knowledge of the Church and its history, and yet you chose to dismiss it.
That's sad.

As it applies to the thread topic, your hypothesis is false.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,110
6,843
50
The Wild West
✟612,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
That statement is saying everyone living today knows Church history, unlike those living in the Dark Ages.
Sorry you misunderstood.... and spent all that time typing. Oh dear.
I hope it was just a copy paste. Tell me it was.
I'd feel a lot better.

Unfortunately I can offer no such consolation - out of respect to fellow members I write almost every word in my posts. The rare exceptions are mostly when I am quoting scripture or the fathers or Patristic canon law, or traditional liturgical texts.

I have been tempted to rickroll certain members who like to base their replies around off-site links, but I shall restrain myself as I suspect the mods would frown on it.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
22,657
13,005
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,297,561.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The thread is about the Didache, and the proof that it demonstrates that the Apostolic fathers deviated from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
This is the claim you make. I've not seen you demonstrate proof of your claim.
You seem to think the Church has no authority to determine what to do when faced with situations that had not been faced by the Apostles, such as how to baptise people in the desert where water is scarce, or that the Church had no authority to instruct on what were considered beneficial spiritual practices.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,852
1,787
60
✟193,358.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Is there any proof that what is carried on today by the Catholic faith, carries on from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles?

Didache.png

The Didache is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise (ancient church order) written in Koine Greek, dated by modern scholars to the first or (less commonly) second century AD

Dating the document is thus made difficult both by the lack of hard evidence and its composite character. The Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150, although a date closer to the end of the first century seems more probable to many
.

Baptism
The second part (chapters 7 to 10) begins with an instruction on baptism, the sacramental rite that admits someone into the Christian Church. Baptism is to be conferred "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" with triple immersion in "living water" (that is, flowing water, probably in a stream). If this is not practical, baptism in cold or even warm water is acceptable. If the water is insufficient for immersion, it may be poured three times on the head (affusion). The baptized and the baptizer, and, if possible, anyone else attending the ritual should fast for one or two days beforehand.

Fasting
Chapter 8 suggests that fasts are not to be on the second day and on the fifth day "with the hypocrites", but on the fourth day and on the preparation day. Fasting Wednesday and Friday plus worshiping on the Lord's day constituted the Christian week. Nor must Christians pray with their Judaic brethren; instead they shall say the Lord's Prayer three times a day. The text of the prayer is not identical to the version in the Gospel of Matthew, and it is given with the doxology "for Yours is the power and the glory forever." This doxology derives from 1 Chronicles 29:11–13; Bruce M. Metzger held that the early church added it to the Lord's Prayer, creating the current Matthew reading.

Daily prayer
The Didache provides one of the few clues historians have in reconstructing the daily prayer practice among Christians before the 300s. It instructs Christians to pray the "Our Father" three times a day but does not specify times to pray. Recalling the version of Matthew 6:9–13, it affirms "you must not pray like the hypocrites, but you should pray as follows." Other early sources speak of two-fold, three-fold, and five-fold daily prayers.

Church Organization
The local leadership consists of bishops and deacons, and they seem to be taking the place of the itinerant ministry. Christians are enjoined to gather on Sunday to break bread, but to confess their sins first as well as reconcile themselves with others if they have grievances (Chapter 14).


From this, we can see quite a number of differences between what the Bible teaches, and what this document alleges is "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations (Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Didachḕ Kyríou dià tō̂n dṓdeka apostólōn toîs éthnesin)".

Baptism
Matthew 3:16, 17; Romans 6:3-7;

Fasting
Luke 18:9-14;

Praying
Matthew 6:7-13; Acts 2:42-47; Acts 14:22; Romans 15:30-33;

Church Organization
Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 5:41, 42; Acts 20:20, 21; 2 Timothy 4:2-5

Our earliest sources of Christianity come from the writings of our early apostles and prophets, and maybe some of the real early church fathers, as long as it is aligns with the early apostles. If a writing is contradictory to NT scripture, then it has nothing to do with Christianity.

There's really nothing more to argue about.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: CoreyD
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is indeed a fact that you have repeatedly tried to lay the errors of some post schism Roman Catholics onto those in this thread that are Orthodox.
That is not a fact, but for some reason you keep repeating it, and I understand why you would not admit that.

I'm well aware that not everyone understands the Orthodox Church. That's understandable. However, you seemingly have chosen to remain willfully ignorant about even surface level basics and differences. Your post #140 shows you still don't get it.
This is why you will not admit it.
You have an agenda, which is to try to paint me as ignorant, and so you won't let go of that agenda.

Whether you are dishonest or ignorant, is not knowledge I possess, because I am not Jesus, but I tried to correct you, and you continued to repeat the same error, so, it can't be anything more than pushing that agenda... which is not right.
It is not fair to me either. It just serves to lift your ego. Is that what you are after?

chevy is100% correct with that statement and so far, it appears you have no interest in discovering what you don't know.

btw, I said the Liturgist is very generous in sharing his knowledge of the Church and its history, and yet you chose to dismiss it.
That's sad.

As it applies to the thread topic, your hypothesis is false.
What I dismissed is your repeated false belief, which you claimed is a fact.

My OP starts this way.
Is there any proof that what is carried on today by the Catholic faith, carries on from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles?

chevyontheriver said:
The ‘early Catholicism’ that appears in the first patristic writings is a huge threat to some Protestants. Which is why the Fathers have to be ignored or even attacked.

I did not there assume that everyone posting on the thread was Catholic, but I knew there were some.
In response to someone, I said...
In fact, every Catholic posting in this thread would be at my throat, telling me how I am teaching heresy.
That did not say everyone posting was Catholic.
However, I did assume @The Liturgist was Catholic. Not from this thread, but a previous conversation. I also assumed the poster was female. Sorry @The Liturgist :sorry:

I was aware that a couple poster I spoke to on the thread were Catholic, so when you made this retort...
FenderTL5 said:
It is not disproven simply because you say so, and I'll take the understanding of the Church over an internet contrarian every time. ymmv
Without considering that you may not be Catholic, I made a response with the assumption that you were, and with that, you picked it up and ran with it, because here was an opportunity for you to belittle my intelligence, which is the next thing persons do when they do not win an argument.

Despite the fact that I mentioned that I now know that @The Liturgist is not Catholic, and apologized to ... them, You repeatedly falsely accused me of treating ...them like Catholic, even though I showed you - not just told you, but showed you I was not.
You were not interested though, because you needed to keep that, in order for your agenda be carried out.

Hence, you suddenly were ignorant about what I was talking about, as if you lost track of the conversation... because I must be the ignorant individual, who don't know anything. :scratch:
You know very well I was not asking or talking about the Liturgist not sharing "his knowledge of the Church and its history". You aren't dumb.
Why feign it... except to paint me as dumb?

There is no hypothesis in the OP.
It is a fact that when you line up the Didache with scripture, there are differences.
I mentioned a couple specifically, and you did not even say one word against what I said.
You just came on with...

FenderTL5 said:
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.

As if your words came down from heaven. :grin:
Listen to me. I am God, and I say xyz.
When you have proof, or even a tiny bit of information that supports a clam, come back, and we can talk.
Otherwise...

Peace
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Unfortunately I can offer no such consolation - out of respect to fellow members I write almost every word in my posts. The rare exceptions are mostly when I am quoting scripture or the fathers or Patristic canon law, or traditional liturgical texts.

I have been tempted to rickroll certain members who like to base their replies around off-site links, but I shall restrain myself as I suspect the mods would frown on it.
I'm sorry.
I hope i can save you some time in the future, when talking to me.
I research a lot. If you try to type out a whole history to me, I will not read it, because I like to do my own research from sources available,
I do not accept what people say on internet forums, even if they tell me they are scientists.

That's how it is with me, and this is because I know that many sources have information that is not always complete. In other word, sometimes certain details are not included.
So, anytime you want to tell me about some historical fact, just either tell me what the fact is briefly, and tell me to check if... if that is possible for you.

Do you think that can work for you?
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is the claim you make. I've not seen you demonstrate proof of your claim.
You seem to think the Church has no authority to determine what to do when faced with situations that had not been faced by the Apostles, such as how to baptise people in the desert where water is scarce, or that the Church had no authority to instruct on what were considered beneficial spiritual practices.
That is a good point.
So what proof do you have that the Didache is from the 12 apostles?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
21,138
18,117
Flyoverland
✟1,195,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
This is the claim you make. I've not seen you demonstrate proof of your claim.
I suspect his 'proof' is that the Didache is just a little bit too Catholic for him and his particular interpretive biases. Rather than calling into question his own interpretive biases it's easier to trash the Church Fathers, starting from the very beginning. What he is seeing and objecting to is called 'early Catholicism' by the theologians, as opposed to some pure Protestantism invented a few hundred years ago. But then they discovered 'early Catholicism' in the New Testament too. Woops! That then became a contrived basis for dating NT books, with the ones manifesting more 'early Catholicism' OBVIOUSLY being dated much later even into the second century. Or not really by an apostle who would never have any 'early Catholicism' in his work. Thus the attempt to maintain the pure interpretation by setting up a canon within the canon of only reliable NT books that didn't smack of Catholicism (or Orthodoxy for that matter).

Early Catholicism (You could probably also call it 'original Orthodoxy') in the NT isn't a surprise at all. But it distresses those who are in revolt from original Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Our earliest sources of Christianity come from the writings of our early apostles and prophets, and maybe some of the real early church fathers, as long as it is aligns with the early apostles. If a writing is contradictory to NT scripture, then it has nothing to do with Christianity.

There's really nothing more to argue about.
Thank you very much.
However, I believe that some persons here have sincere interests, so I like to give everyone a chance to air their views.

Evidently, some seem to think that it is okay to change Jesus' and the apostles' teachings, as though they are not set there with reason.
They seem to think that the scriptures are not proof enough that the Didache is not a deviation from Jesus' and the apostles' teachings.

If we cannot use the scriptures as the basis, for truth, then how will we heed Jesus' and the apostles' warnings to beware of false prophets?
Paul even said, if an angel were to declare another gospel, don't even listen to him.
How much more so, men.

I agree with you though, that there is no argument.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,110
6,843
50
The Wild West
✟612,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I'm sorry.
I hope i can save you some time in the future, when talking to me.
I research a lot. If you try to type out a whole history to me, I will not read it, because I like to do my own research from sources available,
I do not accept what people say on internet forums, even if they tell me they are scientists.

That's how it is with me, and this is because I know that many sources have information that is not always complete. In other word, sometimes certain details are not included.
So, anytime you want to tell me about some historical fact, just either tell me what the fact is briefly, and tell me to check if... if that is possible for you.

Do you think that can work for you?

That would work very well for me, but I would want to know what sources you consulted, and depending on them, I might want to refer you to one of the scholarly works I used so you can understand where I am coming from.

Specifically there are about five Patristic books and three more recent books that I use for reference purposes, in addition to more specialized works, but if you had access to even two or three of those books I believe you would be able to understand my point of view, without having to agree with it.

By the way its against the rules of CF.com to try to proselytize someone to your denomination, so I want to assure you I have no interest in that - I regard you as a fellow Nicene Christian. But I think it would be ideal if I didn’t have to explain things to you, but could instead just summarize, let you research it, but also know where you researched it, and if I think you missed out on salient details, I would want to be able to suggest a work to you, that you could chose to look at or not look at, but in looking at it you would either be able to see that I had made a mistake and inform me of it, or else you would be able to understand, even if you rejected, my perspective.

I do also have a very large library of public domain ebooks which I can share with you, which are mostly by scholarly writers who try to remain doctrinally neutral.

God bless you,
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
13,110
6,843
50
The Wild West
✟612,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Our earliest sources of Christianity come from the writings of our early apostles and prophets, and maybe some of the real early church fathers, as long as it is aligns with the early apostles. If a writing is contradictory to NT scripture, then it has nothing to do with Christianity.

There's really nothing more to argue about.

That’s true, and the Didache is one of the writings of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, and it is not contradictory to the New Testament in any respect.

If you want to see something that is clearly contradictory, from the same time period, look at the Tripartite Tractate or the Epistle of Barnabas, which are very different but equally problematic. Or the Manichaen Protoevangelion of Thomas, not to be confused with the sayings gospel known as The Gospel of Thomas, which I think is clearly corrupt, but insofar as much of what it says matches the synoptics, I think it was a list of sayings of our Lord used in some remote part of the Church as a stop gap due to the shortage of Gospel Books, especially in languages other than Greek, but it was corrupted by one of the heretical sects.
 
Upvote 0

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,852
1,787
60
✟193,358.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
That’s true, and the Didache is one of the writings of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, and it is not contradictory to the New Testament in any respect.

I know you and others would like to have us think that, but it bears no resemblance to any of the apostles writings. To me, from what I know of it, it's just an early church doctrine describing church type membership activities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CoreyD
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I suspect his 'proof' is that the Didache is just a little bit too Catholic for him and his particular interpretive biases. Rather than calling into question his own interpretive biases it's easier to trash the Church Fathers, starting from the very beginning. What he is seeing and objecting to is called 'early Catholicism' by the theologians, as opposed to some pure Protestantism invented a few hundred years ago. But then they discovered 'early Catholicism' in the New Testament too. Woops! That then became a contrived basis for dating NT books, with the ones manifesting more 'early Catholicism' OBVIOUSLY being dated much later even into the second century. Or not really by an apostle who would never have any 'early Catholicism' in his work. Thus the attempt to maintain the pure interpretation by setting up a canon within the canon of only reliable NT books that didn't smack of Catholicism (or Orthodoxy for that matter).

Early Catholicism (You could probably also call it 'original Orthodoxy') in the NT isn't a surprise at all. But it distresses those who are in revolt from original Christianity.
Actually, the proof is in the Bible, and the Didache verifies that it is not legit.
Baptism is one of the main proofs
Why don't you address that, rather than appeal to interpretation?
Strong's Greek: 907. βαπτίζω (baptizó) -- to dip, sink
Was baptism not by immersion? Matthew 3:16, 17; John 3:23 Was there not a basis for that? Romans 6:4-6; Colossians 2:12

You are obviously emotional about this.
So far, you have not shown why persons should accept the Didache.
You are aware Jesus spoke about the hypocritical fasting, are you? Luke 18:9-14
...I fast twice a week;...

Chapter Eight
And let not your fasts be with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you fast Wednesdays and Fridays. Do not pray as the hypocrites but as the Lord commanded in His gospel. Pray like this: Our Father... Pray like this three times a day.
The hypocrites fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but the righteous fast Wednesdays and Fridays?

What do you have to say about that.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
2,219
448
63
Detroit
✟49,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That’s true, and the Didache is one of the writings of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers, and it is not contradictory to the New Testament in any respect.

If you want to see something that is clearly contradictory, from the same time period, look at the Tripartite Tractate or the Epistle of Barnabas, which are very different but equally problematic. Or the Manichaen Protoevangelion of Thomas, not to be confused with the sayings gospel known as The Gospel of Thomas, which I think is clearly corrupt, but insofar as much of what it says matches the synoptics, I think it was a list of sayings of our Lord used in some remote part of the Church as a stop gap due to the shortage of Gospel Books, especially in languages other than Greek, but it was corrupted by one of the heretical sects.
I asked this before, and you went away.
Can you answer it now.
Where does the scriptures command Effusion?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
22,657
13,005
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,297,561.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is a good point.
So what proof do you have that the Didache is from the 12 apostles?
It was widely accepted as authoritive in the early Church
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0