Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Didache


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 14 May 2003 - 10:58 PM

Background

Please refer to The Didache.

And note

I can find all of the Christadelphian community’s essential beliefs and practices in the Apostles’ Creed and the Didache.


and the generally good correlation between the apostles creed and the didache with apostolic doctrine posted by Fortigurn here.

Refer also to Evangelions In defense of the didache.

I have also seen a good comparison of chapters 11-13 with scripture although I haven't found it posted here.


In Addition

There is a marked correlation between a number of sections and the sermon on the mount as recorded by Matthew:

Didache ReferenceBiblical Reference
1.1Matt 7:13-14 same message
1.2bMatt 7:12 same message
1:3Matt 5:44
1:4Matt 5:39-41
1:5 Matt 5:42
8:1Matt 6:16
8:2Matt 6:5; 9-13 quoted directly 'as the Lord hath commanded in his gospel'
14:2Matt 5:22-24 by allusion

And that also in Matthew:
1.2aMatt 22:37-40 same message

On baptism:
7:1Matt 28:19 referred to as 'these precepts'

It therefore seems likely that
15:4Matt 6:1-7 is being alluded to

Note also:
14:3Mal 1:14 quoted directly as 'being spoken of the Lord'



The document as a whole displays an encouraging similarity with Christadelphian beliefs and practices. It is a document which places great emphasis on practical issues of living, which although agreed with by example, are not spoken of that often from the platform (in my experience). This is probably an over reaction to the 'I could have heard that anywhere' attitude, but is a pity none the less.

I now have a few questions.
Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#2 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 14 May 2003 - 11:07 PM

Question 1

Given that the whole of chapter 1 up to part way through 1:5 is in Matthew, why isn't the rest of it?

Where is the second part of 1:5 and particularly 1:6 (because it's a direct reference) taken from?

The sentiment in 1:6 is often used to justify not giving to, for example, street beggars.
How does this square with 'give to very one that asketh of thee, and ask not again' which is in Matthew? (I have seen the parallel with 1 Tim 5:9-13 but that's in the context of entry to an official category of people who were being completely looked after by the ecclesia, which is not the context of the sermon on the mount.)

1:5 Give to every one that asketh of thee, and ask not again; for the Father wishes that from his own gifts there should be given to all. Blessed is he who giveth according to the commandment, for he is free from guilt; but woe unto him that receiveth. For if a man receive being in need, he shall be free from guilt; but he who receiveth when not in need, shall pay a penalty as to why he received and for what purpose; and when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.
1:6 For of a truth it has been said on these matters, let thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given


Question 2

Where is the remaining direct quote taken from?

15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent.


Question 3

With regard to 'essential beliefs and practices'.
I find it odd that the didache contains no reference to the the promises to Abraham and that the connection to the promises to David is so loose (proximity of kingdom in 10.5 with Son of David in 10.6).
Any explanation?

10:5 Remember, Lord, thy Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the kingdom and the glory for ever.
10:6 Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.


Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#3 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 14 May 2003 - 11:18 PM

Question 4

With regard to 'essential beliefs and practices'. I find it odd that the didache contains no reference to the death on the cross. It has an account of the Eucharist (9, 10 and 14). The only sacrifice referred to is that of the fully immersed believers breaking bread.

Any explanation?

Question 5

What is chapter 9 on about? The symbology wine=House of David, and bread=scattered church; seems peculiar.

Question 6

Please explain the connection being made in chapter 14, between the breaking of bread, Matt 5:22-24 and Mal 1:14. Do you agree with it?

CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

CHAPTER 10
10:1 But after it has been completed, so pray ye.
10:2 We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
10:3 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for the sake of thy name, and hast given both meat and drink, for men to enjoy, that we might give thanks unto thee, but to us thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son.
10:4 Above all, we thank thee that thou art able to save; to thee be the glory for ever.
10:5 Remember, Lord, thy Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the kingdom and the glory for ever.
10:6 Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
10:7 But charge the prophets to give thanks, so far as they are willing to do so.

...

CHAPTER 14
14:1 But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted,
14:3 for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles


Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#4 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 06:04 AM

itinerant - thanks for your contribution. I'll see what I can do about answering your questions. :)

Question 1

Given that the whole of chapter 1 up to part way through 1:5 is in Matthew, why isn't the rest of it?


I guess that's really a question which can only be answered by the authors of the Didache. But I suggest that they simply quoted those portions which they believed to be immediately relevant to the points they were making.

Where is the second part of 1:5 and particularly 1:6 (because it's a direct reference) taken from?


I don't know. It could be a Jewish saying; it could be a Christian saying. But part of the second part of 1:5 is a direct quote from Christ himself:
Matthew 5:25-26.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
This matches the corresponding entry in the Didache:
when he is in tribulation he shall be examined concerning the things that he has done, and shall not depart thence until he has paid the last farthing.

The sentiment in 1:6 is often used to justify not giving to, for example, street beggars. How does this square with 'give to very one that asketh of thee, and ask not again' which is in Matthew? (I have seen the parallel with 1 Tim 5:9-13 but that's in the context of entry to an official category of people who were being completely looked after by the ecclesia, which is not the context of the sermon on the mount.)


I believe that the principle of 1:6 is synonymous with the principle of I Timothy 5:9-13. In both cases, the Christian is advised to determine the bona fides of the individual who receives his charity. That is a sensible precaution, and I see nothing in it which might conflict with the teachings of Christ. Certainly, the authors of the Didache saw no contradiction here, for they quote "to very one that asketh of thee, and ask not again" alongside their suggestion to "thy almsgiving abide in thy hands until thou knowest to whom thou hast given."

If they had believed these two teachings to be opposed in any way, they would have included only one and omitted the other.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#5 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 06:33 AM

itinerant -

Question 2

Where is the remaining direct quote taken from?

QUOTE  
15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent.


When you say "the remaining direct quote", do you mean the part which I have highlighted? :) I am not sure where it comes from, and I am not even sure that this is intended to be the "commandment in the Gospel" to which the Didache refers. I see the Didache presenting two different sources here:
  • "The commandment in the Gospel."
  • Another, unidentified source (which may be a common Jewish or Christian saying.)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#6 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 06:42 AM

itinerant -

Question 3

With regard to 'essential beliefs and practices'. I find it odd that the didache contains no reference to the the promises to Abraham


There is nothing unusual about this. The apostles themselves do not commonly present the promises to Abraham as an intrinsic part of the Gospel message - and those who do, only do so in the context of Jewish-Christian relations. They are cited regularly in discussion with non-Christian Jews, but not with Gentiles. The Didache itself is clearly not written for any single audience; it is written for the Christian community as a whole.

and that the connection to the promises to David is so loose (proximity of kingdom in 10.5 with Son of David in 10.6). Any explanation?


I would give the same reason as for the omission of the promises to Abraham. Certainly, the essential teaching is there (the Son of David will establish a kingdom on Earth) and that is, after all, the core of the Davidic covenant.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#7 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 06:47 AM

itinerant -

Question 4

With regard to 'essential beliefs and practices'. I find it odd that the didache contains no reference to the death on the cross. It has an account of the Eucharist (9, 10 and 14). The only sacrifice referred to is that of the fully immersed believers breaking bread.

Any explanation?


My explanation is that the Eucharist is presented as a ritual familiar to Christians. They already understand what it is intended to signify; that much is taken "as read." The authors of the Didache are therefore only concerned with the mode of practice, and it is assumed that the participants understand the significance of the ritual itself.

This is consistent with Paul's own instructions on the Eucharist (I Corinthians 11) in which he makes reference to "the night on which he [Jesus] was betrayed", but never once mentions the crucifixion. As with the Didache, a certain degree of knowledge is assumed by Paul.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#8 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 07:01 AM

itinerant -

Question 5

What is chapter 9 on about? The symbology wine=House of David, and bread=scattered church; seems peculiar.


Avva Andreas (a commentator from the Antiochian Catholic Church in America) provides the following exegesis:
Two things become immediately evident in these prayers. Left unsaid are the Words of Institution: "This is my Body. This is my Blood." Left out also are all the usual prayers of the Synaxis, or the beginning of the Qurbana.

In the first case it is because of the discipline of secrecy and in the second because the Synaxis was open to the catechumens. Those prayers were already known to them.

The second is the lesson of what is written down. The reference to Christ as the vine makes us recall that we are all His branches, and the scattered bread reunited into one oblation means that we are made one with each other by this Communion, not only one with Christ. There is, in this whole teaching, no room for "individual Christianity." Christianity is found within the Church, the whole body of believers, and elsewhere not at all. The betrayer of the Church cuts himself off not only from the Church, whom his betrayal sent to the lions, but from Christ.


Source.
I believe that this is a fair explanation. Certainly, the authors draw a deliberate parallel between the "bread scattered upon the mountains" and the Christian community, with the emphasis on congregational unity. This provides a legitimate basis for Andreas' exposition.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#9 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 07:07 AM

itinerant -

Question 6

Please explain the connection being made in chapter 14, between the breaking of bread, Matt 5:22-24 and Mal 1:14. Do you agree with it?

QUOTE  
CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

CHAPTER 10
10:1 But after it has been completed, so pray ye.
10:2 We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
10:3 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for the sake of thy name, and hast given both meat and drink, for men to enjoy, that we might give thanks unto thee, but to us thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son.
10:4 Above all, we thank thee that thou art able to save; to thee be the glory for ever.
10:5 Remember, Lord, thy Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the kingdom and the glory for ever.
10:6 Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
10:7 But charge the prophets to give thanks, so far as they are willing to do so.

...

CHAPTER 14
14:1 But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.
14:2 But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted,
14:3 for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles


I see the connection as an emphasis on the importance of acceptable worship. Malachi 1:14 insists that Yahweh requires a pure sacrifice, and the authors of the Didache clearly understand the Eucharist as the Christian equivalent of that "pure sacrifice" which was offered under the Law of Moses.

Yes, I believe that the connection is legitimate.

Sorry if these answers are shorter than you would have preferred. I trust that they will at least constitute a solid basis for future discussion. :)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 May 2003 - 11:43 AM

Lovely work! :)

I hope to add to this on the weekend. ^_^
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#11 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 12:16 AM

Thanks mate. :)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#12 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 12:22 AM

A quick clarification.

Where is the remaining direct quote taken from?

 15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent.


I meant the part now highlighted. It looked familiar but I couldn't find it. I did however miss the Matt 5:25-26 link so I've probably just missed this one too.
Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#13 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 02:29 AM

It's probably just a paraphrase. The early Christian documents are full of similar examples. Not everyone had access to the original mss., and consequently, paraphrasing became a common practice.

This has resulted in a plethora of "quotes" which are head-scratchingly familiar, but impossible to pin down. :)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#14 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 11:43 AM

So where do you think it's a paraphrase from? (In Matthew would be nice!)
Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 12:34 PM

There are any number of commandments to rebuke peaceably and not in wrath. I'm actually wondering if this one is from Galatians:

Galatians 6:
1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


The closest in Matthew I can think of is here:

Matthew 18:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#16 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 12:36 PM

Where is the remaining direct quote taken from?

 
15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent.

This is the most likely source:

2 Thessalonians 3:
2Th 3:6  Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#17 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 17 May 2003 - 09:53 AM

True, but the tricky part is that the authors of the Didache say "as ye have commandment in the Gospel."

That could be a more general reference to the core Christian teachings (which were indeed expounded in the Pauline corpus) but given the fact that the authors of the Didache are clearly using Matthew as their primer, it's hard to relinquish the obvious connexion between vocabulary and source material.

Still, it is demonstrably true that they cite the Pauline corpus regularly, so who knows...? Could be Paul they are quoting after all. :)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 17 May 2003 - 09:55 AM

Yes, I've thought about that. I'm going to check the Greek text of the Didache, and see which word it uses for 'gospel'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#19 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 17 May 2003 - 11:39 AM

Standard word for the gospel. Now to look at the context of its use...
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#20 itinerant

itinerant

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 836 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 05:01 PM

I hope to add to this on the weekend. ^_^

I'm going to check the Greek text of the Didache, and see which word it uses for 'gospel'.
...Standard word for the gospel. Now to look at the context of its use


I've not been around much in the last couple of weeks - are you still thinking about this?
Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.
-- Kahlil Gibran

#21 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 08:31 PM

Yes, i've looked through it. It does seem that the Didache uses the usual Greek word for 'gospel' in the usual way.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 08:20 PM

Di [short 'i'] dah kay.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#23 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:12 PM

Di [short 'i'] dah kay.

What language is it in? I thought it was Di [short 'i'] da [short 'a'] chay.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#24 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:20 PM

What language is it in?


Greek. :popcorn:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#25 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:23 PM

What language is it in?


Greek. :popcorn:

OK, forget that then, Greek is all Greek to me.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#26 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:44 PM

:popcorn:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#27 Guest_chairete_*

Guest_chairete_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:59 PM

If you're feeling especially erudite, you could always try aspirating the 'k' / 'ch' sound - as in Scottish 'loch' - but tell your fellows to remain beyond spitting distance until you've got this practised.

:popcorn:

#28 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 10:09 PM

:)

:tomato: Ow, my eye! :bleh:

:popcorn:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#29 Lawpark

Lawpark

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 926 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 11:53 PM

about the didache...

I read it all the way through, and it seems to be rather vague or well... doesnt even talk about the nature of christ. Correct me if i am wrong, but it doesnt seem to say anything about it. It seems like i might have asked this before.. hum...

but i remember someone quoting the didache and that we agree perfectly with it. i think just about every religion would tend to agree with it... correct me if im wrong?

it just seems really vague to me. :confused:
"Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." {Phil. 3:12-14}

#30 growly panther

growly panther

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 709 posts

Posted 19 October 2003 - 11:09 AM

about the didache...

I read it all the way through, and it seems to be rather vague or well... doesnt even talk about the nature of christ. Correct me if i am wrong, but it doesnt seem to say anything about it. It seems like i might have asked this before.. hum...

but i remember someone quoting the didache and that we agree perfectly with it. i think just about every religion would tend to agree with it... correct me if im wrong?

it just seems really vague to me. ;)

coupla thoughts for you...

essentially, the nature of Christ has only become an issue since the idea that God is Christ and Christ is God (some 1700 years ago) ....

other christians could agree with it because its so simplistic. thats an interesting point - it was simple - they come and loused it up with extra ideas and interpretations post-didache. They read too much into truth, which is simple! and then we have to respond to qualify the simpleness ! so you end up with the heavy duty B*SF statements ...

Oh, for the good ole days (sorry Alethia, couldnt resist :confused: ) when simple to the point of vagueness sufficed !




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users