didachē

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It also has baptism in the name of the Lord and triple baptism, in running water. It's an odd document even for Trinitarian standards

not really you can find a few text in history among the early church fathers, that talked about dipping 3 times concerning baptism, and when i speak of church fathers i refer to those before the nicene creed and before rome established christianity as its state religion.

There are some in early church history that quoted from this book in their writings

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

not really you can find a few text in history among the early church fathers, that talked about dipping 3 times concerning baptism, and when i speak of church fathers i refer to those before the nicene creed and before rome established christianity as its state religion.

There are some in early church history that quoted from this book in their writings

And that is odd. You can find all kinds of early documents. Just because they are old does not mean they are truth. The bible does not teach triple baptism

This is evidence early on church members were falling into traditions of men

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And that is odd. You can find all kinds of early documents. Just because they are old does not mean they are truth. The bible does not teach triple baptism

This is evidence early on church members were falling into traditions of men

people can always look at early church history to get a idea how the early church believed.

Though we dont see it in scriptures, doesnt mean they didnt practice it. Expecially when many people shared the same point throughout a certain time span.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

people can always look at early church history to get a idea how the early church believed.

Though we dont see it in scriptures, doesnt mean they didnt practice it. Expecially when many people shared the same point throughout a certain time span.

Here are the problems with that'

1) we don't know the dates for sure most of the time

2) often documents were forged by someone else

3) often the contain interpolations, meaning someone changed something, deleted something or added something

4) Even if genuine the don't tell us how the entire church believed. For example, early on many Christians were gnostic and there are many documents considered gnostic. That the were gnostic does not mean the entire church was nor that such a view should be up for consideration

My earlier point was, if it's not in scriptures and people practiced it, it's a tradition of man not the word of God

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Here are the problems with that'

1) we don't know the dates for sure most of the time

2) often documents were forged by someone else

3) often the contain interpolations, meaning someone changed something, deleted something or added something

4) Even if genuine the don't tell us how the entire church believed. For example, early on many Christians were gnostic and there are many documents considered gnostic. That the were gnostic does not mean the entire church was nor that such a view should be up for consideration

My earlier point was, if it's not in scriptures and people practiced it, it's a tradition of man not the word of God

one can read the writings themselves and make the call weather they think its inspired or not.

I dont find any problems with the didache contridicting the bible personally. I also just skimmed over the epistle of barnabas and really still dont see any contridiction. even expanded on some other views i have had.


though i agree with things getting flaky after the church state mix under constantine. but usually before that what tidbits we have most have went under major microscopes to disproove and aprove

and most dates are a guess to when specifically written, however they keep the date with in the life time of the person written

For instance justin marytrs work

however i dont believe we have to keep adding to the bible everytime we discover something.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by acerrak

one can read the writings themselves and make the call weather they think its inspired or not.

.

Bump for prax

also many times over the sources we read much of them have presupposed positions on the topic. Its hard to find unbiased material.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by acerrak

Bump for prax

also many times over the sources we read much of them have presupposed positions on the topic. Its hard to find unbiased material.

I read it the first time you posted it