Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

If you claimed there was an absence of Jesus as a wandering charismatic prophet in the Didache, then that may pass. But, how do you justify the claim of "The Absence of an Historical Jesus in the Didache," when the Didache quotes Jesus like so?:

You would know the answer to that by reading the Appendix I spoke of in either of my books. Oh, wait, that's right. You don't bother to read the works of those you denigrate. You file complaints that unrealistic and unfair demands are being urged on you.

For your information, the Didache does not quote Jesus. It quotes sources which end up in Jesus' mouth in the Gospels.

Earl Doherty

OK, I am curious. Who do you think the Didache quotes, if not Jesus? Must be a "Lord" of some sort, but I suppose you were only giving me a teaser, and I'll have to buy the book if I want to know.

EarlDoherty · 06-18-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

If it is claimed that the early Christians documents are "silent" about the "teachings, miracles, prophecies" of Jesus, but the face of the evidence indicates that such things are not absent, then there is a problem for the argument, and it is not solved by speculating ad hoc that "Lord" does not actually count as Jesus, nor is the problem solved by speculating that the Didache, which has the same quotes of Jesus as in Matthew/Luke, somehow thought very differently about the "Lord" than Matthew/Luke. Unless you have evidence for your speculations, then don't present it as a problem. It is problem for you, not for anyone else.

And how would you know whether my arguments are "speculating ad hoc" and lacking in evidence, since you steadfastly refuse to read them?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

If it is claimed that the early Christians documents are "silent" about the "teachings, miracles, prophecies" of Jesus, but the face of the evidence indicates that such things are not absent, then there is a problem for the argument, and it is not solved by speculating ad hoc that "Lord" does not actually count as Jesus, nor is the problem solved by speculating that the Didache, which has the same quotes of Jesus as in Matthew/Luke, somehow thought very differently about the "Lord" than Matthew/Luke. Unless you have evidence for your speculations, then don't present it as a problem. It is problem for you, not for anyone else.

And how would you know whether my arguments are "speculating ad hoc" and lacking in evidence, since you steadfastly refuse to read them?

Earl Doherty

I was talking to Toto, not you. Are you saying that you have the same sort of claims, and they are not just ad hoc speculations? Is there any way for me to review your arguments without paying you money? I don't want to pay you money, at least not unless you pay me $39.95 for printouts of all of my writings, and then we have a deal.

EarlDoherty · 06-18-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

OK, I am curious. Who do you think the Didache quotes, if not Jesus? Must be a "Lord" of some sort, but I suppose you were only giving me a teaser, and I'll have to buy the book if I want to know.

What other "Lord" is there? If there is no "Lord" meaning Jesus in the Didache, as I've clearly demonstrated in that Appendix, and all through the early Christian non-Gospel record the source of the various messages and gospels being preached is regularly declared to be God's, through scripture and the Spirit, what have you been missing in the Didache?

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

OK, I am curious. Who do you think the Didache quotes, if not Jesus? Must be a "Lord" of some sort, but I suppose you were only giving me a teaser, and I'll have to buy the book if I want to know.

What other "Lord" is there? If there is no "Lord" meaning Jesus in the Didache, as I've clearly demonstrated in that Appendix, and all through the early Christian non-Gospel record the source of the various messages and gospels being preached is regularly declared to be God's, through scripture and the Spirit, what have you been missing in the Didache?

Earl Doherty

OK, great, we can start there. You are saying that the "Lord" applies strictly to God, not to Jesus, despite the direct connection to Jesus what we would conclude from examining the gospel of Matthew. So, tell me your evidence for interpreting "Lord" as God, not as Jesus Christ, so that your claim of silence is more than just an ad hoc speculation.

andrewcriddle · 06-19-2011, 07:16 AM

The didache chapter 11 discussing wandering preachers has

Quote:

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

Although it may formally be possible, I find the idea that a newly arrived wandering preacher should be treated as God himself rather startling. It seems rather more plausible that received as the Lord means welcomed as you would Christ himself. If so then the Didache does seem to be associating Christ with wandering evangelists.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2011, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The didache chapter 11 discussing wandering preachers has

Quote:

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

Although it may formally be possible, I find the idea that a newly arrived wandering preacher should be treated as God himself rather startling. It seems rather more plausible that received as the Lord means welcomed as you would Christ himself. If so then the Didache does seem to be associating Christ with wandering evangelists.

Andrew Criddle

That seems to be a good catch.

aa5874 · 06-19-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

....Although it may formally be possible, I find the idea that a newly arrived wandering preacher should be treated as God himself rather startling. It seems rather more plausible that received as the Lord means welcomed as you would Christ himself. If so then the Didache does seem to be associating Christ with wandering evangelists.

Andrew Criddle

Even Christians KNOW that the "Historical Jesus" is regarded as Heresy and could NOT have been taught by the Church and in the NT Canon.

The NT Canon is about the Jesus Christ born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth and Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen all WROTE the very same thing.

It is CLEAR that Jesus could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed as God Incarnate and was NOT an actual ordinary man who was a Blasphemer and a False Prophet.

Once Jesus was just an ordinary man then his theological value VANISHES.

EarlDoherty · 06-19-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The didache chapter 11 discussing wandering preachers has

Quote:

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

Although it may formally be possible, I find the idea that a newly arrived wandering preacher should be treated as God himself rather startling. It seems rather more plausible that received as the Lord means welcomed as you would Christ himself. If so then the Didache does seem to be associating Christ with wandering evangelists.

Andrew Criddle

I don't agree. Note that everything is in the present sense, not--as we might expect if the thought were about receiving the first wandering preacher Jesus of Nazareth--in the past. Since the thought is present, the writer is hardly envisioning a re-incarnated human Jesus knocking at one's door, and so any 'visit' from the Lord meaning Jesus would be in a spiritual sense. If one can envision receiving the spiritual Jesus in a spiritual sense, why not God himself in a spiritual sense? The thought is simply not that literal, in either case. The only way it would at all be meant in a literal sense of answering a knock at the door by the human Jesus is if the thought applied to the past, and then we would expect a wording or sentiment like, 'receive the itinerant preacher just as you would have received our founder Jesus if he came to your door.'

Besides, a good case can be made (and I've made it) for regarding all references to "Lord" within the Didache as being a reference to God. This is not liable to be an isolated exception with no clarification.

Earl Doherty

Solo · 06-19-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The didache chapter 11 discussing wandering preachers has

Quote:

Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

Although it may formally be possible, I find the idea that a newly arrived wandering preacher should be treated as God himself rather startling. It seems rather more plausible that received as the Lord means welcomed as you would Christ himself. If so then the Didache does seem to be associating Christ with wandering evangelists.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,
isn't that how Paul was received first in Galatia ?:

you know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Gal 4:13-14

I think the Didache was an early post-Matthew document for the purposes of proselytizing in Pauline neighbourhoods, by means of Paul-sounding pleading litanies, and admishments. I would say 'the Lord' is used very much like in the sense Paul used it in referrring to Jesus Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.