The Didache | What Does it REALLY Tell Us About Early Christianity?

The Didache is the oldest church handbook handed down to us from the early church. The Didache tells us some truly incredible things regarding the practices of the first Christians! What did the first Christians believe and how does the Didache shed light on this topic?
#newtestament #christianity #history

[@ReligiosityPlus]

If you are interested in learning more about the Q Gospel, check out our video all about it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpapZamqoaetetU

[@tml721]

I studied it in collage 40 years ago. It's amazing that back then it was considered oral and now its considered written yet lost.

[@timsmith2525]

No such document. There is no evidence that it ever existed.

[@jevans80]

Regarding your comment on murdering children, it was very common practice in the Roman and Greek culture of the time to dispose of unwanted children- either through very risky abortion, or just leaving them outside once born. Early gentile Christians would have considered this an acceptable practice, hence the Didache's specific prohibition. It is well noted in early Christian and non-Christian sources that the early church was noted for the very unusual practice of taking in abandoned babies, rather than leaving them to the dogs.

[@davidkarns6870]

Specific source?

[@jevans80]

@@davidkarns6870 For what, the infanticide, or that Christians took them in? Pretty much all of the Greek philosophers taught it (they were very influential on Empirical Roman culture), and there are Roman sources like Seneca, Philo and Cicero who attest to the practice. There's even a papyrus letter from a Roman soldier to his pregnant wife, telling her to throw out her newborn if it's a girl. As far as Christians raising those children, you can go to many of the church fathers who discuss it and make exhortation to protect them. There are many Christian inscriptions on child graves in catacombs which are the burial places of children they couldn't save. It was Christian bishops appealing to Christian emperors that outlawed the practice, and non-christian emperors (Julian the apostate) who complained that the Christians cared for others, not just their own. Not any single source, but not hard to find summaries online with a quick Google

[@davidkarns6870]

Thanks for your comment. I have heard these before, but it's always better to have specific citations.

[@KFish-bw1om]

Isn't it interesting how "scholarship" so often presupposes that "a later author could have just inserted it into the text", despite having zero evidence to even suggest that that's what happened. Only when dealing with Christian writings though of course. You'll never find that much "skepticism" applied to anything else. They could be reading a recipe for pineapple upside down cake and find that it calls for a can of refried beans, and they still wouldn't be that skeptical.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

I must say, the refried beans in a pineapple upside down cake part had me laughing pretty hard! Great comment! But I assure you as someone with a degree in ancient history, all kinds of ancient literature have interpolations in them. Not just Christian writings. And we have good evidence to suggest it happened. Some evidence is grammatical, some evidence is thematic, some evidence is papyrological…just to name a few. Formal training in historical analysis makes these later insertions stick out like a sore thumb.

[@randomjake1488]

Is there any specific evidence in this circumstance to think this is the case? Scholars in this area seem to only agree with each other when they’re biases, usually secular biases, align.

[@jnmincali]

The reason they say that is they find references in earlier text. it's not like it it just appears there it has been found other places. Nobody's doing anything to biblical writings that they don't do to everything else they're not trying to get you nobody's looking in your windows little Feller

[@daltonadams4672]

'Don't in any way say anything negative about my beliefs'.Such fragility!

[@OldMotherLogo]

There are many instances where later copies of texts contain passages that are absent in early copies of texts. This makes it pretty likely that someone added a passage later. in some instances, there are manuscripts that have the added verses inserted in the margins. This is not disputed by Biblical historians.

[@tomfaranda]

I love the didache. I actually have it on my phone. Great opening Didache line- "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways." Pretty much says it all

[@BenM61]

There is no Pauline Christianity in the Didache.

[@josephpchajek2685]

@@BenM61 There's no Pauline Christianity in the Bible either. Paul is a major part of the new testament and an apostle providing the teachings of Jesus via the aid of the holy spirit. He's works are an accepted part of the Canon. Can't say the same about the Didache. p.s. pretty crazy to be teaching a video on this subject while wearing a Jimi Hendrix shirt.

[@BenM61]

@@josephpchajek2685 Saul never met Jesus and he didn’t care about what Jesus preached in his gospel. All he cared about was the dead Jesus not Jesus and his gospel. This Saul guy claimed he has his own ‘gospel’ which he received from the dead Jesus. Apostle? No way. No one chose him to be an apostle but he installed himself an apostle. The twelve apostles didn’t choose him as an apostle. He was a fake apostle who founded the Christianity we know today. You are being led by an imposter who was himself led by Satan himself. This Saul wrote: “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” He claimed the historical Jesus was not important anymore. Jesus to this heretic was worth more dead than alive.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

It's a wonderful intro isn't it! :)

[@ugonnaonwuchekwa3614]

​@BenM61 really, and he kept referring to Jesus speaking to him and guiding him through hard times? Except you already think Paul was a liar, there is enough evidence in his writings to show he depended on the living God, Jesus. This sounds like a Muslim argument you are making. Are the other letters by John and Jude and Peter also from fake followers of Jesus?

[@richardglady3009]

That was an amazing lecture on the Didache…the best I have seen. Thanks for all your hard work in its creation.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you richardglady! I appreciate your kind words! It was my pleasure creating it!

[@rabbitdawg7964]

I really like this channel. Scholarly, objective, without an agenda. Too many channels dedicated to Christian education are little more than faux intellectual exercises; either they're preaching, or they're barely hiding a hostility to the faith. This is so incredibly refreshing, intelligent & engaging - informative without causing the viewers eyes to glaze over. Please, keep up the great work!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thanks for your kind words rabbitdawg! That’s exactly what I’m hoping for! Much love!

[@MykolasGilbert]

Informative? I heard more it could be's and questions than anything informative!

[@thespiritguru7480]

Fantastic video as usual! I always go to this channel when I want the most in depth historical understanding of ancient texts and concepts! Much respect!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Why thank you spirit guru! Greatly appreciate your kind words.

[@triconcert]

As we research authentic sources for this document, it becomes luminously clear to scholars worth their salt, that the Didache was written between 50 to 60 AD, that the early Church Fathers were promoting Catholic doctrine in their writings since they were the direct beneficiaries of Apostolic teaching. What the Didache teaches us about the praxis of early Christianity is that it was Catholic and reflects the continuous practice and teaching of that Apostolic tradition today. Much appreciated.

[@katieevans6017]

The catholic Church didn't exist at that time. All early doctrine was Christian doctrine.

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

​@katieevans6017 the Catholic Church did exist. When do you suppose the Catholic Church existed?

[@Sam1jere]

​@@chimeremnmaozioko17During the time period referenced, the Bishop of Rome was equal to peer bishops, including Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. The Church was catholic (universal) in outlook, as per the Great Commission, but was not Roman Catholic. Remember that Paul the Apostle was killed around 66 A.D. How could the existence of Roman Catholicism have escaped mention in Acts and other sources?

[@Burgermeister1836]

It was Catholic. Orthodox Catholic.

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

@Sam1jere The church did get mentioned. Cause it wasn't a separate entity from the church mentioned in Acts. St Ignatius of Antioch uses the word Catholic to separate the church that upholds orthodoxy from heretics. If you deny the Catholicity of the early church, then you claim it was heretic. But anyways, by the time the didache was written, the see of Rome was already exercising authority on other diocese. We know this from Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians. Also, the orthodox bishops did also acclaim the Bishop of Rome to be the 1st among equals.

[@JC-be5cc]

Glad i found this channel, great video!

[@squids]

Comment for the algorithm! Amazing vieo as allways! You are amongst those youtubers on Christian topic that i adore and are dear to my heart! Thank you for your ministry with your channel!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you so much Squids! I greatly appreciate your kind words!

[@warrenr.johnson7990]

Absolutely to understanding early Christian literature. Thanks!

[@CanadianAnglican]

Thanks for the great video. Absolutely love your channel.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you CanadianAnglican! Much love!!

[@scottleibbrandt9326]

Another amazing video! Thanks so much!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thanks for the comment scottleibbrandt! Blessings to you!

[@ZaneTalks392]

As a biblical Christian who loves church history, I absolutely love the Didache and wish its wise teachings were practiced more often.

[@lornadoone8887]

They are in expanded and adapted forms in the Eastern Orthodox Church where “the rule of prayer is the rule of faith/belief”. The New Testament came from the Apostolic tradition already being taught in the early Church through its hierarchy in its Liturgy and practices, not the other way round. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

[@anthonyhulse1248]

They are. In the Catholic Churches.

[@brianwilliams-se5jy]

​@@lornadoone8887 so long as you understand Paul's meaning of church wasn't the Roman Catholic which didn't exist in its current form but the followers of Jesus and the Way

[@jeremiahh.3383]

​@@brianwilliams-se5jy Sure the Catholic Church wasn't a thing then. That was the role of the apostles in Jerusalem. They were not just some random group of followers scattered about here and there.

[@brianwilliams-se5jy]

@@jeremiahh.3383 random no but scattered they were, there were "churches" groups of followers scattered all across the Roman empire Paul's writings address many of them , the people were and are the true "church " its not some man made institution holed up in the Vatican

[@Achill101]

Thank you for your video on the Didache and for stating that it is a composite book, written in layers at different times. I recommend the Didache for all Christians to read. For further study, I recommend the videos and texts of Alan Garrow, an active Anglican priest, on Garrow's website.

[@TamSak-il8yu]

I didnt skipped the adds, why? It's my only way to support you and the channels w/ the knowledge we can get from you Sir!! Finally, new video 🤩🤩🤩👊

[@Newwavechristianity]

Well done, great attention to detail!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you kindly!

[@whitwhit95]

This is super interesting! I've never heard of the Didache before! I also find the baptism part about fasting interesting. I've never heard of someone fasting before baptism! It was also super neat to think about the things listed as prohibitions being common practice. It's interesting to think about whether these things were common practice!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thanks Whitley! It is interesting to think about isn’t it. Crazy world out there! Thanks for the comment!!!!

[@patbilek692]

I love this channel. You do a great job explaining things eloquently in depth while not being overly complicated. I knew nothing of the didache before this video, but I didn't feel like I couldn't understand what was happening in this video, nor did I feel like I was being patronized to. Great work

[@whitwhit95]

I agree! He does such a great job explaining things in a respectful and informative manner!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Aww thanks patbilek692! I greatly appreciate your kind words! Thanks buddy!

[@nicoleschommer2656]

Great video!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you kindly!

[@theophilos0910]

Very comprehensive overview - the parallels of the first chapter of the DIDACHE and 1QSerek (and ‘the Damascus Document CD from cave 4) found in 1946-1949 at Qumran (probably copied as early as c. 150 BCE) suggest further links between the earliest ‘Nazorean’ Christianities in the Levant and the Dead Sea Scroll ‘Zafokite’ break-away Covenanters at Seccacah (present day Qirbet Qumran) which the monks in the 1st century BCE through June 68 CE called ‘the Camp at Damasqim’ - when the Vatican got wind of the Qumran Dead Sea scroll ‘Rule book’ 1QS, the Ecole Biblique immediately seized control of the caves’ fragments (until 1989 !) so that they could stifle the publication of any fragments ‘that might impugn the image of Christ being unique’ - and being very knowledgeable about the contents of the DIDACHE the Vatican immediately recognised the connexion between the earliest Nazorean Christianities & the scrolls as a ‘danger to the Faithful’… An actual direct quotation about ‘The Doctrine of the Two Ways’ from 1QSerek & other passing references to ‘the Way of Life v. the Way of Death’ in CD would have illustrated this connexion better for your audience … In terms of early ‘acceptance’ of the DIDACHE by later Christian bishops who had to decide ‘which books could be acceptable for being read-aloud in Church Service Liturgy’ here are some more details : Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Tatian, Theophilos & Ignatius of Antioch & Justin Martyr all quoted from the DIDACHE as if they ‘accepted it as authoritative’ [the Peshitta and the Aethiopic Bible both accept the DIDACHE as ‘canonical holy scripture’ & is listed in the ‘Apistolic Canons’ as ‘authoritative’ - Whereas on the other hand later Church leaders like Eusebeius (c. 320 CE), Nikephoros (c. 810 CE) and Pseudo Athanasius (c. 670 CE) believed that ‘the DIDACHE is not canonical holy writ itself, but we acknowledge some churches still regard it as ‘defiling the hands’ (= I.e. holy scripture) - so there was some division from the earliest days as to how to regard this ‘composite’ book which may have existed in longer or shorter versions (like the gospel narratives) as they circulated over time and in different areas of the world by means of hand-written copies…

[@paxonearth]

I find the Didache to be fascinating and extremely worthwhile to one's spiritual walk. It reads to me much like the Epistle of James. It seems to me that it's less concerned with promoting adherance to doctrine than it is with how to conduct oneself, thus mirroring, in large part, my own beliefs.

[@williampawson5476]

What an interesting doctrine you have...

[@bairfreedom]

I have this along with all of the 2nd century father writings. Haven't got to this yet.

[@mrnoedahl]

I think it strange that a religious (or Christian) KZbin channel would use the secular dating method rather then the Christian one. 🤔

[@geoffhemmings6546]

Anything good to say?

[@mrnoedahl]

@@geoffhemmings6546 Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer! Sing, O Earth, His wonderful love proclaim! Hail Him! Hail Him! Highest archangels in glory; Strength and honor give to His holy Name! Like a shepherd, Jesus will guard His children, In His arms He carries them all day long. Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness; Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song! Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer! For our sins He suffered, and bled, and died. He our Rock, our hope of eternal salvation, Hail Him! Hail Him! Jesus the Crucified. Sound His praises! Jesus who bore our sorrows, Love unbounded, wonderful, deep and strong. Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness; Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song! Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer! Heav'nly portals loud with hosannas ring! Jesus, Savior, reigneth forever and ever; Crown Him! Crown Him! Prophet, and Priest, and King! Christ is coming! over the world victorious, Pow'r and glory unto the Lord belong. Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness; Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song!

[@timswauger9245]

Whose invention was "BC" & "AD?" Learn from 2 Timothy 2:14.

[@mrnoedahl]

@@timswauger9245 I don’t know. But it was a great invention.

[@timswauger9245]

@mrnoedahl An Eastern Orthodox monk 500 years after Jesus' resurrection. Like Easter & Christmas celebrations, there's nothing in Scripture requiring it. Besides, "BCE" "CE" are still based on Christ's birth, regardless if it's acknowledged.

[@Ribastein]

To my knowledge the debate around baptism has been going on since the reformation when a few men started forming their own churches based on their personal beliefs and interpretations of the bible.

[@Achill101]

The Reformation re-opened some questions that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believed to be settled by 1500CE, like when to baptize (babies or only adults) and how. But the Didache shows that these questions were debated in the early church, and it took a mediating position.

[@user-ts4be8yg8p]

Great video just found your video young man

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thank you! I appreciate your kind words!

[@mikepoulin3020]

The admonition against "mixing poison" is specifically about chemical contraception, a practice common among Roman upper class women...

[@lionflame21]

The reason why it did not made to the canon: 1st Questionable authorship - early father's are aware that this is a compiled work that possibly intended as a cathecism to new convert; 2nd focus on orthoparchy instead of orthodoxy, ie. right actions over right faith

[@cybrough]

It quoted Matt 6:9 the Lord’s Prayer with the long ending. Is that true to the original?

[@powerofk]

The Didache really is its own category in the “rejected” books of the canon, mostly not being in the canon because it’s more of a missal/catechism than anything else, and thus there was no real place for it. The other three categories of rejected NT books are as follows: “near scripture,” that is, books that were often even thought of as scripture in many early Christian communities but not attributed to the apostles, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians; pious legends, such as the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul and Thecla; and outright heretical books, often written by gnostic sects.

[@user-eu7ql1uj6y]

I thought there was scholars who date the didiche to pre 70s based on the wide spread quotations of it that occur both in scripture ie Pauline and the earliest church writings ie Barnabas, shepherd of Hermes. Did I just imagine those quotes or inferences when I read them.

[@mikepoulin3020]

The two ways formula goes back to Old Testament Jewish Wisdom literature...and shows in works like Jeremiah 21:8 and Psalm 1:1 etc

[@xadam2dudex]

The reason why the text mentions not murdering children separately is because in Roman and Jewish culture a child was not considered human until they reached puberty.. a Roman father could kill his children or sell them into slavery and later buy them back .. Jews also didn't consider children human until their ceremony of adulthood after which they could be given in marriage.. that is why Abraham could sacrifice Issac without sin .. many other cultures practiced infanticide famously the worshippers of Baal .. the Greeks also practiced infanticide such as the Spartans who abandoned those considered weak to die from exposure or animals sometimes to be taken by others as slaves or their own children .. in the old testament woman are told to abort a child if she becomes pregnant by another man not her husband since women were the property of her husband and so were her children .. no man would take another man's child as his own due to rape or to adultery..

[@danacamp5437]

These are outrageous claims. Children weren't considered human until puberty in Jewish culture? I'm not buying it. Sources, please.

[@ralphowen3367]

Amazing that this guy does not say that one of the controversies in baptising was whether to baptise only adults and whether to use the name prescribed by the Bible--Jesus Christ.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

There was no paedobaptism controversy at that time. As in the New Testament, baptism was explicitly restricted to persons old enough to those who had expressed faith in Christ Moreover, the Didache required candidates for baptism to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before, which effectively ruled out paedobaptism.

[@kydenj28]

So how do we have writing from early church fathers but not from early sources?

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

Huh?

[@VersatilisPeritus]

scroll down to "churches", years that rites where established are listed there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites Here's a list of documented Popes in chronological order en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites First known mention of the word Catholic come from a letter from St. Ignatius to the Smyrneans in year 110, 77 years after the resurrection. Read chapter 7 for what heretics deny about the Eucharist. Chapter 8, first mention of "catholic church". Chapter 9 : honoring the Bishop. Hierarchy affirmed. The early Church was in fact Catholic. The years 1517 to 1536 ushered in Luther's and Calvin's personal interpretations of the text. 100 years later, Jacobius Arminius ushered his 2 cents. If you are a protestant, your theology and doctrine come from one of these 3 men. Prove to me Jesus' teaching was taught incorrectly for 1,517 years

[@dcbolivia]

“Typically things that are included in lists of prohibitions are things that are commonly practiced.” What? Where does this assumption come from? My own experience writing employee policy documents is that something only needs to have happened once to make it onto a list of prohibitions if it is sufficiently serious.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

It is a category error to assume modern day employee policy documents have any similarities to an ancient church handbook nearing 2,000 years old. Paper in the ancient world was expensive and the cost of including something in an ancient document is much higher than today. If something was an uncommon practice, why use the extra space and cost to include it? If something was more of a widespread issue, then it makes sense to include. Today, employee policy is designed to cover a variety of real or potential issues to avoid litigation. This simply wasn't the case 2000 years ago in the ancient near east.

[@dcbolivia]

@@ReligiosityPlus Was writing material really so expensive as to preclude the inclusion of anything that wasn’t common in a list of prohibitions? And ancient writings have a ton of inefficiencies that could be eliminated long before we get to this issue, so the idea that ancients had to be so stingy with writing materials is doubtful. Making this assumption, you’d also have to conclude that infanticide was common among early Christians that the author of the Didache was writing to. I know that infanticide is far rarer now than it was anciently, but are we really to conclude that it was common? And what about murder generally? And mixing poisons in particular? I understand that employee handbooks today and the Didache are different things, but it’s human nature to make the kinds of analyses that we would describe today as a risk matrix. If the odds of something happening are low, but the consequences are terrible, then it’s worth addressing. That reasoning didn’t pop up spontaneously with corporate risk management departments. So what’s the evidence for the claim above?

[@spikestoyou]

@@dcboliviaWriting was not a common practice at the time. Writing material was not something widely available to the public. And yeah, ritual sacrifice of infants was definitely a thing.

[@dcbolivia]

@@spikestoyou It’s true that literacy was low and writing materials less abundant than today, but it doesn’t then follow that only common practices would make it into a list of prohibitions. Scarcity didn’t seem to impede the circulation of all three synoptic gospels, despite being duplicative in many parts. And adding a few lines for rhetorical flair, as a stern warning, or whatever other motivation one might have other than that the practice is common, does not take up much space. Child sacrifice was common among early Christians? Show me the evidence.

[@spikestoyou]

@@dcbolivia Not early Christians but semitic peoples more generally had a recent history of engaging in such practices. Anyway kinda seems like something just jumped out at you that you’d like to argue about so I’m gonna just wish you well and move on. God bless

[@terryhunt2659]

You mention speculations that the Didachist knew of at least passages from 'Matthew' and 'Luke'. Is it not more likely that the authors of M and L knew some of the earlier documents that the Didache compiles, if not the Didache itself?

[@randomjake1488]

As if they knew of the oral tradition that predates the written gospel? I think that is what the “Q” source and is potentially right. Otherwise, the document is almost certainly just quoting Matthew and Luke

[@terryhunt2659]

@@randomjake1488 But the 'Q' source appears to have been a 'sayings of Jesus' compilation (like the Gospel of Thomas), whereas the Didache is largely a 'procedural handbook' based (it seems likely to me) on the practices of the Jerusalem church (i.e. Jesus' own family and other disciples), with elements of tactics to oppose 'false preachers' which might have been prompted by the activities of Paul (and his gentile followers) in the 50s and 60s. As such its elements (if not the document as a compiled whole) likely predate 66-70, when the Jerusalem church fled or was dispersed into Syria and elsewhere, whereas most scholars now think that 'Mark' was written 70-80, and 'Matthew' perhaps 10 years later.

[@deborahborne4861]

The Didache also draws heavily on the Jewish Torah as does much of Jesus' teaching in the gospels.

[@MykolasGilbert]

"For those who want to dive further into the madness"!! The only thing that you stated that makes any sense!!

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Scholarship can be madness sometimes! I find it enjoyable.

[@tuvoca825]

11:32 to get to content.

[@thesinfultictac5704]

The Didache saying "even the nations do this" about the golden rule shows that it wasn't a new or novel concept in the world.

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

The very notion of 'the canon' dates from a century later than the usual dates given to the Didache. So when it first circulated: there was no canon for it to be a part of. It was however seen as a writing of the Apostolic fathers and therefore had weight in those early communities. A 'weight' similar to the writings of Paul or the Shepherd of Hermas. Eusebius? We should approach Eusebius with caution... 'Constantine's Christian propagandist' would be a good description of him. Athanasius (Constantines 'enforcer') doesn't support an Egyptian origin.. He was writing 2 centuries later. My 'dupliciity' detector is twitching.

[@samlawhorn]

I agree with you regarding the notion of the two canons. You are correct on that point, for sure. I disagree regarding Eusebius and Athanasius-and really, Constantine, for that matter. Were you maybe refering to Eusebius of Nicomedia, rather than Eusebius of Caesarea? Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confounded with Eusebius of Nicomedia, the excommunicated, then reconciled, then the baptizer of Constantine just prior to the emperor's death) can hardly be called Constantine's propagandist. Eusebius of Caesarea was just barely in the Orthodox party (i.e., he wasn't excommunicated), which indicates that he wasn't among Constantine's very closest friends there (see below). He had initially supported the other Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Arius, and he was skeptical of some of the language used by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria's party ("homoousion" had been used in another way by the Sabellian heretics), but he ultimately sided with the Orthodox and signed. He did write two panegyrics and a eulogy for Constantine which has come down to us, and he held the emperor in high regard. The emperor also liked and admired him, but he was certainly not the mouthpiece of an emperor who was not a fully baptized Christian until very close to his death. Eusebius of Caesarea seems to be one of those characters in history who manages to get along with just about everyone. It is this quality that makes his Church history (the first such work outside of the Acts of the Apostles) generally trustworthy, even if his dates aren't perfect. People in the west love to say that Constantine controlled the Church or that he ran the First Ecumenical Council, but this cannot be true for several reasons. First, the council is estimated to have lasted close to a year (there are no official acts of the council, but we do have writings of those who attended). An emperor does not have that kind of time. Second, Constantine was not a Christian at this time, not even a catechumen. He had an interest in Christianity (his mother Helen was a Christian), and he had experienced the vision of the chi-rho before battle; but the bishops would not have allowed him to make judgments about their faith. Third, Constantine spoke Latin, while the council was held in Greek. He sometimes stopped by to listen in. During those moments, Bishop Hosios of Cordoba (Spain) translated for him. But by all accounts, he didn't stick around too long. Fourth, the handful of bishops who were excommunicated by the rest (over 300 bishops in attendance) were precisely the bishops who were the closest friends of Constantine. If Constantine had controlled the council, the excommunication of his friends would not have been the outcome. Calling Athanasius Constantine's enforcer is an even harder stretch: he was exiled by Constantine after being falsely accused of scheming to stop the supply of grain from Egypt. A deacon of the Alexandrian party and secretary to Alexander during the First Ecumenical Council, Athanasius supplied much of the thought that ultimately carried the day at the council. Since Constantine's closest friends among the bishops were excommunicated by the council, Constantine would certainly not have asked the author of the language of the council to be his enforcer. Ultimately, Athanasius was exiled five times by four different emperors. He was falsely accused of killing a bishop named Arsenius (who was actually still alive); he was forcibly replaced in his episcopal see of Alexandria (he was elected bishop after Alexander by the insistence of the faithful there) by a couple of different Arians; and he fled Alexandria on other occasions when his life was in danger. While he did work tirelessly for the Church (his list of the 27 books of the NT is believed to be the first complete list ever recorded), he clearly had no time or luxury to be anyone's enforcer. I'm aware that Bart Ehrman and his ilk have made statements to the effect that Athanasius wielded immense power throughout his reign as bishop, but the evidence is very much stacked against them on this point (and many others they like to make). Regarding authorship of the didache, I think I see what you mean. But I think what the author of the video meant is that since it appeared in Egypt at that early date, Egypt could be the place the didachist lived. There was quite a lot of travel and trade between the two sites he suggested, so it would be difficult to say with certainty anyway. I'm honestly surprised that he didn't say Jerusalem directly, since the Didache contains so many direct references to Jewish literature. There are a few mistakes in the video, but it's good overall.

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

@@samlawhorn Er... Have you read Eusebius of Ceaserea's incomplete 'Vitae Constantine'? I can't think of a more fawning eulogising propaganda of a psychotic ruler, And let's not forget the Eusebius seems almost to have defined the supposed 'truth' of church history for the 4th century and after up to the 18th C., probably being the one who faked the Testamonium Flavinium as we now have it. Not to mention the '50 Bibles thing' which is basically a pamphleting campaign in a pre-print context. And our first historical mention of the Council of Nicea is provided by....guess who? I have no idea why you would imagine Constantine had 'friends', or why you would imagine he wouldn't drop any associates like a hot brick should that suit his purpose. Dude executed his wife and his own son after all. Not to mention his reputation for 'forgiveness' in public... with those he had 'forgiven' later experiencing encounters with 'murderous bandits'. Dude was not a 'friendly' sort. And it's pretty clear from Constantine's support of the Anti-Arian council at Antioch that he had already sided with Alexander against Arius. And as I understand it Constantine appointed the anti-Arian bishop Ossius as basically the Chairman and his agent and representative at both Antioch and Nicaea. And of course Constantine made his dramatic entrance to emphasise his oversight too...* And it does not seem to be a secret that what he was really after was 'unity'. anti-Arian seemed to him the most likely to provide that. I also seem to recall Constantine camped a couple of Legions a few miles away to 'ensure the safety of the council'. And it's pretty obvious, that Constantine made it very clear that 'same substance' was going to be part of the creed. With this in mind. We very quickly get a picture of Constantine's political manoeuvring, intimidation, and control. I doubt few there (he invited 1800... Only about 300 turned up) were under any illusion of the 'wise' decision they were expected to make. The near unanimity of the council (only two dissenters) seems profoundly suspicious in this regard. *Now there is a prime example of Eusebius propagandising, describing Constantine's entrance... "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones." Seems like the threat of 'excommunication' worked to get Eusebius back on side. Oh... And 'late baptism' was near universal among Christians at the time... Once you have been absolved, don't want to live too long afterwards, wouldn't want to tarnish that nice clean soul. I'll do Athanasius seperately.

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

@@samlawhorn Athanasius... Your description of Athanasius seems to me to emphasise his role as Constantines 'enforcer. Pushing limits, testing boundaries... Exiled when he went too far even for Constantine. (Gotta be pretty malicious for that.) Not to mention he later sided with Constan's the more psychotic of Constantine's surviving sons. It's not clear why you would think him falsely accused of trying to starve Alexandria into submission. 'later whitewashed to appear innocent' would seem to be a more accurate interpretation. Athanasius's 'canon'*.... Would seem to show his propensity to approve and disapprove texts which is pretty obvious 'enforcement' behaviour. And which likely led to the burial of the Nag Hammadi corpus. And let's not forget that Orwell dubbed Heresy and blasphemy as 'crimethink', so it's obviously a political tool in itself. The fact he could manoeuvre (intimidate?) the Alexandrian clergy to his cause seems likewise to confirm his status as 'enforcer' rather than refute it. And his many exiles likewise demonstrate his propensity to test and cross boundaries. It also likewise suggests that given an opportunity to get him out of their hair... His support among the clergy could melt away at a moment's notice. Glad to hear Ehrman is finally onside, last I heard/read him on the issue he was somewhat kind to Athanasius, but that was at least a decade . *Granted Athanasius nicked a lot of his canon list from the relatively obscure (at the time) Iraneous of Lugdnum.

[@DJTheTrainmanWalker]

@@samlawhorn Oh... And regarding the Video.... The opening few minutes were far too duplicitous I never got any further...

[@ricklamb772]

Tells me just like in all time periods,people made up a religion and a God in their own images.Each race went home and made unto themselves a Jesus in their own image.And A God to match.

[@tookie36]

Dating the didache and the didachist can be darn difficult

[@jamesseilhymer9330]

How do you make the leap that because the writing mentions a prohibition against abortion that early Christians may have been practicing abortion? Clearly the writing is backing up what Paul and other NT writers were saying to not do what the world, secular culture were doing.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

I’m simply pointing out that prohibition lists are often in place because they represent issues that have actually happened. The fact that more and more Gentiles began converting to the faith should not surprise us that these new converts still practiced some of their old pagan ways. Thus, it makes logical sense to think new converts in the early church practiced abortion. I’m not saying it was a widespread and accepted practice within the early church. No way

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

No, it's a fair point. People were committing abortion whether it was the Christians or non Christian. Where he goes wrong is that he should have brought the discussion to the notion that the early church was very anti abortion. When he leaves it as he did, it supports the notion that the early church didn't consider abortion to be a sin, which is clearly not the case.

[@schmidtcs]

Yikes this video attracts some real hot takes

[@astaboy]

To what end was the Didache stitched together as a patchwork after the fact? Isn't more plausible that a 1st/2nd century Christian Leader was already familiar with the gospels and the writings of Paul? Or at least already swimming in the waters of what would soon become established tradition? Quite frankly: I've had a stomach full of early 20th century German 'higher criticism'. This outdated 'scholarship' is still dying kicking and screaming.

[@bromponie7330]

Great video! But regarding 17:50... huh? Unless you also want to assume theft, murder, & the other prohibitions in that passage were common practices among Christians... singling out abortion strikes me as totally ad hoc.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Thanks for the comment bromponie! I wasn't trying to say that abortion was a common practice among Early Christians so much as I was attempting to highlight the fact that many pagans were entering the faith and it's possible that many pagan practices followed them. So they needed something like the Didache to instruct them as to how followers of Christ should behave. Newcomers to the faith likely engaged in all kinds of questionable activities without realizing they were contrary to the views of their new religion.

[@bromponie7330]

@@ReligiosityPlus That's fair 🍁

[@markrobinson2923]

Something you didn't consider by way of origin is a priority in Holy Scripture: Divine Revelation. You may be aware that the entirety of the 2nd chapter of I Corinthians is about the priority of Revelation. Jesus Himself is quoted in Jn 10: "My sheep hear My voice, I know them and they follow Me." Paul said in Eph 4: But ye have not so learned Christ if so be that ye have heard Him and been taught by Him as the truth is in Jesus." I could go on but this comment is getting long. But the testimony of Scripture doesn't commend to us the figuring out of these spiritual realities we mean to grasp. Spiritual realities are not apprehended by cogitation, they are apprehended by Revelation. The Bible itself cannot be understood by cogitation, it must also be a matter of Revelation or it cannot be understood. To think that the Early Church out of cogitation instead of Revelation suggests of them that they were operating in the same Greek Rationalism that is such a plaguing idolatry in the Church today for maybe a millennia and a half. The Early Church was populated abundantly by lower class people whose literacy and training in reasoning may reasonably be questioned. That we seem to exclude Divine Revelation from the experience of Faith and Faithfulness remains a mystery to me.

[@egggmann2000]

In the Catholic Church I believe it is an approved book, meaning good to read, but not infallible as scripture. I’m pretty sure it’s friendly to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, that’s why it’s really only controversial in Protestant circles

[@coregoon]

I'm curious if the Didache's prohibition on abortion specifically regards to killing the unborn, or if it's against murdering the unborn. The definition of murder is an illegal killing, so it's an interesting distinction.

[@food4thort]

How do we know that God, and not mere mortals, determined which books made the canon?

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

Because Jesus promised the gates of hades shall never prevail against the church. It was with God that Christians were able to perform miracles. It was through him that their faith was not shaken even during times of persecution. God delivered his people from the hands of their persecutors and so through him again, the Christian Canon was set. Also, the Christian Canon was not set in one day. Since the time of the Apostles, people have been writing, and others have been accepting these writings as truth. Because God was with them.

[@food4thort]

@@chimeremnmaozioko17 But who has authority to dictate what is orthodoxy and what is heresy? Not all Christianity recognizes the same 27 book New Testament. There are more writings not included in the canon than are. Further, the earliest known codex (Vaticanus) excludes 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. The later codex Sinaiticus has these books but also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes. Even Martin Luther thought Revelation wasn't scripture. There is no evidence of the divine in the New Testament selection - just men and power.

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

@@food4thort first off, all fo Christianity currently recognises the books of the new testament. It's the old testament people debate. And OK, Luther had a problem. So what? Christianity had already long considered these books scripture. That's Luther's problem. The difference in the codex vaticanus, codex sinaiticus, codex alexandrinus and the Bible we have today just goes to show that the Bible was not made canon in a day and that the Bible is not one book. In many different places, there were books that had significantly more importance than they did elsewhere. So just because a book was not traditionally read or part of a Canon of a certain region does not mean that it was forbidden to be read by the wider church.

[@food4thort]

@@chimeremnmaozioko17 All Christianity does NOT recognize the 27 NT books of the KJV (and derivatives thereof). The Eastern Orthodox tradition and the Oriental Orthodox tradition for example. Who is to say that only the Western Orthodox tradition is correct? Faith is based on believing what you want to believe

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

@@food4thort ok I'm gonna give you a chance to go back and do your research. Then we could continue this conversation. The tewahedo church, ok fine but that's part of their broader canon, but everyone else agrees on the books of the NT. Let me just lead you to the right direction. The deuterocanonicals are not part of the NT but the OT

[@juncatv]

Sounds a lot like... the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c.107), disciple of John: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Blessings

[@Mandellhouse]

It’s so misleading to capitalise the English word ‘Catholic’. The Greek or Latin equivalents were ‘universal’… the single church became corrupted, so it’s no badge of honour.

[@olivianatwick7603]

Here's an idea maybe the didache writer is the author of the letter to the Hebrews.

[@pauldbeer]

"That ancient Christians new of the Gospel as we do today... This is absolutely not the case" How do you know this? Guesswork? or fact? Surely not fact, as there is no "absolute" evidence for this!!! "...the "Didache" was written long before the Gospels...." This is not true, or the very least not agreed upon at all, as you have stated yourself, there is many writings in the Didache that seems a lot like writings from the gospels, thus at least a number of writings from the Didache must have been written well later than the Gospels in order to have these "copies" or very similar writings, as can be found in the Gospels! Also, the oldest copy of the Didache is later than many of the writings of the Gospels and letters of Paul!! "...back when other gospels, that are now lost, likely circulated..." Well, this is at best conjecture, as if these supposed gospels ever existed, you can not know of them as they are "lost" and therefore one has no evidence of such a claim, thus this claim is not sensible!!!

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

It's now known the Didache was wide spread before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Sources for this statement?

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

Start following Jimmy Akin. Top Theologian of our time.

[@jondover8128]

The didache communion reads more like a Jewish kiddush then a catholic communion

[@hezekiahstephenjames]

Brother, it cannot be true that the identity of the Didachist "will likely always be a mystery" because Jesus tells us otherwise. " For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad" Luke 8:17 Love, Hezekiah

[@glennorrell3446]

I personally do not accept the B.C.E and C.E and it matters not to me what 'Important professional' look down on me for doing so. It is specifically, B.C. Before Christ and A.D. After Death - meaning after the death of Christ.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

I by no means look down on anyone for using BC and AD. I use BCE and CE because I had to use it in college and it became a habit. That’s all. Also, AD does not mean “After Death.” AD means “Anno Domini” meaning “in the year of our Lord.” Thanks for the comment

[@timswauger9245]

Whose invention was "BC" & "AD?" Learn from 2 Timothy 2:14.

[@TP-om8of]

@@ReligiosityPlusAnd that’s exactly the problem: anti-Christian academia hates Christianity and western culture and tries to enforce their anti-Christian norms. I always complain vociferously when someone uses BCE/CE ; it’s very offensive.

[@combatINFOcenter]

The Didache: Christianity for Dummies, first century. On point, or not?

[@chimeremnmaozioko17]

It's a Catechism basically

[@IonDru-rm3ot]

Leon Trotsky - 1879

[@kydenj28]

Read the book of James.

[@ralphowen3367]

Didache does not say to use the name of Jesus Christ in Didache.7.

[@flowbrandz316]

It's BC and AD

[@ReligiosityPlus]

In college I had to use B.C.E. and C.E. so it's a habit that stuck. That is all.

[@angelawossname]

CE and BCE were invented by Christian scholars who figured out that Jesus could not have been born in the year 1. These days it is also used by Christians who are intelligent and educated enough to know this, and are the commonly accepted terms by academic scholars. You use BC and AD strictly out of habit and ignorance.

[@hochmeisterulrichoffrankfu8207]

@@angelawossname CE and BCE were invented by JEWISH scholars because they reject Christ as Messiah (Christos means Messiah in Greek) and they can't use terminology that recognize Him as such

[@rappmasterdugg6825]

Wrong. BC and AD are used because they originate from the Gregorian calendar, developed by Catholics. BCE and CE are religiously neutral terms for those folks who don't want to use Christian terms or references. 2024 AD and 2024 CE are the same year. So although you and I can agree that the Gregorian calendar does not get the year of Jesus's birth correct, the BCE and CE calendar doesn't get it right either.

[@flowbrandz316]

@@rappmasterdugg6825 It's the same calendar and starting year "zero". What's the point of obfuscating the truth with a nicer sounding abbreviation. Christians still won the calendar game. Let be up front about it

[@pete4258]

I find it ironic that you use the secular C E. instead of AD.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Just something I had to use in college and now it's a habit. That's all.

[@Sam1jere]

A.D. is not Christian either, just a denoter of a time. We understand that Jesus is still the divider of time (and history), whether anno domini or Christian Era is used. Majoring on minors perhaps?

[@jonspencer9461]

Who cares? We know what it means.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

@@jonspencer9461except the “common era” is dated from the life of Christ.

[@bennieboi99]

dude who cares Jesus is not the center of the universe and all of history does not revolve around him lol

[@larrya7822]

Notice it said to tell the person that is being baptized to fast. So how can you tell a baby to fast or an infant ! But there is only one baptism that saves. That's the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What we do is just symbolizes what the holy Spirit has done for us. Which should only be done on a person that can confess their faith.

[@michaelogrady232]

Your opinion is duly noted as a novel teaching. We, on the other hand, will listen to those who still had the voices of the Apostles ringing in their ears.

[@georgepierson4920]

Try actually using common sense. They were not saying that infants had to fast.

[@samlawhorn]

In the early Church, infants were baptized. The Bible speaks of this when it uses language like, "he and his whole household were baptized." During the era of persecution, this became even more expedient: although in most quarters of the empire, those sent to the slaughter were narrowed down after being asked to sacrifice to the gods (and babies can't do that), there are instances of entire households being martyred. There was a period in the Church not too long after the persecution was lifted when it became fashionable to wait until one reached the age of Christ when He was baptized. St. John Chrysostom was among those, for example. But this practice died out for another good reason: high mortality rates among infants. So, the Church returned to the ancient practice of infant baptism. I see how you inferred your point from the text. It seems to make sense when we take the book out of context. But keep in mind two things: 1.) the Apostolic Age was a period of rapid growth in the Church, so the instructions are aimed at adult converts for that reason; 2.) the book was compiled for a spiritual father to guide a catechumen (i.e., the book was wielded by someone who was already familiar with the fine points and practices of the Church). A priest or bishop using the text wouldn't need to be reminded that a baby cannot fast from food. I hope that helps.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Baptized by water and the Holy Spirit.

[@michaelogrady232]

@@anthonyhulse1248 Yes.

[@cvanhaelst4189]

CE or AD? CE works if you mean Christian Era and not Common Era. After all Christ did create time.

[@Steven-em5if]

I thought the same thing. If you are using BCE or CE you are saying Jesus wasn’t real man. All the evidence says he was a living historical man.

[@j.h.4506]

🤡 do you mean that pope Gregory created time? Christ did not use BC or AD, and neither should we

[@johnemanuele8695]

Christ created time? You are delusional

[@paulushasibuan]

BC and AD made for time before and after jesus lives and it was accepted for centuries..

[@paulushasibuan]

CE or BCe is absurd

[@geraldarcuri9307]

Jimi Hendrix?

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Yep, Jimi Hendrix! Long live rock’n Roll!

[@soteriology400]

I have this book, but I don’t conclude it was inspired. So not really seeing the value in it.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

It’s historical context.

[@soteriology400]

@@anthonyhulse1248It appeared to me to have an agenda. Problem is, the super majority of Christian’s do not exercise much in the way of discernment when reading church history. Too much gullibility, way too much.

[@believer8793]

The Didache is biblical

[@PsychesMusings]

😇👍

[@terencewinters2154]

Spartans regularly got rid of imperfect children

[@AnthonyAnthony-tk4ye]

What do you mean what are we trying to date? What’s important, the “letter” of the law, or the “spirit” of the law? Should we apply or misapply laws blindly, or have good judges who can interpret what they were meant for? It’s from the first century bro, maybe as early as 50 AD.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Parts of the Didache are from the first century, parts are likely even older than that. But its final redaction came in the second century. Therefore, it's a second century text with first century material. These points matter.

[@ricklamb772]

Jesus is the Son of God ,the Son of God ,not God the Father, He is the express image of His Father,Second in power of all things.The Father is mightier then the Son.The Son recieves His power from His Father.

[@Katya-zj7ni]

No, He is God, there are three Divine Persons in the One God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[@anthonyfowler2623]

Encyclical?….rough draft?

[@michaelcontreras148]

Great Catholic book

[@cmyates]

Why are you using “ce” and “bce” instead of bc and ad? You are speaking to a Christian audience.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

In this particular video I am speaking to a largely Christian audience, but my channel as a whole is not. My videos are not partisan. In college I was required to use BCE and CE and it became a habit. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@hmddoc]

Sounds like 4th century and later writings after the trinity was added to the “bible”.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

When was the Bible compiled?

[@VersatilisPeritus]

​@@anthonyhulse1248367 AD Athanasius lists in his Easter letter. The 27 books of the NT canonized in 393 at the Counsel of Hippo, later affirmed at Carthage. However, we do have a document called the "Muratorian Fragment" that possesses 22 of the 27 NT books. Thank the Lord for the Catholic Church getting all of this work done over the centuries!

[@Paisios77]

Sounds more like you have no clue about early church history.

[@shadycnetwork]

BCE? You lose all credibility with me when you do that. You should watch the video by Neil deGrasse Tyson about why it's okay for people to use BC and ad..

[@julianemperor2554]

BC is ok but AD makes no sense as it means After Death of Christ and Jesus Christ is definitely not Dead

[@michaelhaywood8262]

@@julianemperor2554 No, as the date is from His birth, not death. It is Anno Domini, Latin for Year of the Lord.

[@tuvoca825]

"Also on cotroversial topics"? They are all controversial topics. 😂

[@bennwj]

It tells us that the early church was catholic.

[@KoreshDabar-YHWHbenYisrael]

Just like all Psuedapigrapha, The Didache is written like someone took a bunch of verses actually written and strung them together attempting to prophesy in the way we see Peter and Paul preaching in the Book of Acts. Things like the Didache and the "Lost Gospels" are people's replacement for the Word of God. You must Follow the Commands of Christ to understand the scriptures in its entirety. No single piece of literature lost in time and rediscovered has any merit in guiding the person to knowing the Scriptures, knowing the Word of God for what says the Scriptures? Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. So many seek every which way but the way commanded of Christ to be built. Youre all looking to know the scriptures but do err because you all keep looking to something other than the activity of following the Christ for you must Die to be set free and whomever tge SON sets free is free indeed. Wisdom is justified of her children and that comes by way of Hearing and doing for Blessed is the Man that HEAR the Word of God and Keeps it. It's that keeping of it that is the obedience and the obedience of US unto Christ ought to be seen as the obedience of Christ to the Father. No amount of literature outside of the Bible will EVER help or guide anyone to understand or know the Scriptures. It is the FEAR of The LORD that is the beginning of Knowledge.

[@georgepierson4920]

Wrong.

[@tmcge3325]

The 12 Apostles and all those that followed the Lord were NOT Christians.....they were Messianic Jews. They followed the Torah! Did not believe in easter, christmas nor eat ham sandwiches or hallow sunday as the Sabbath. Tell me, do you really think Yehoshua believed in easter? Do you think he Hallowed Sunday as the Sabbath? Do you really think he did NOT follow the Torah? Luke 9:23 Follow in his ways....Follow me! Peace!

[@johnschuh8616]

You make a distinction between “Jewish” and “Christian”, which for the first 100 years is not as hard and fast as you imply. Jesus was a Jew whose followers are part of Hellenistic Judaism. The destruction of the temple was probably the event that to the development of Rabbinical Judaism, which became orthodoxy foe the Jewish people. But the “Jewishness” of what came the Christian Church ought not to be denied even as the majority became non-Jewish. .

[@Ettoredipugnar]

St. Ignatius of Antioch ? The Icon of St. Nikephoros is not the Patriarch of Konstantinople but St. Nikephoros the Leper . The Didache is a record of the Apostolic council of Jerusalem . Acts 15

[@stevenvalett1231]

Can't say Israel instead of Palestine?

[@lufax]

No. Because that's not precise. Judea? Samaria? Galilee? There is no Israel during the 1st Century

[@michaelhaywood8262]

The name used in NT times was Judaea.

[@lufax]

@@michaelhaywood8262 really? For the whole region? What about Galilee? Samaria? Are they also Judea?

[@barbwellman6686]

Galatians 5 19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

[@danbujor5991]

Anyway you put it CE is Christ Era. Are You afraid to say AD ?

[@ReligiosityPlus]

Nope, not afraid at all. I use BCE and CE because I had to use it in college and it became a habit. Nothing more.

[@Paisios77]

What does the acronym A.D. stand for?? Please do tell me

[@michaelhaywood8262]

@@Paisios77 Anno Domini.Latin for Year of the Lord.

[@WayneGolding]

Why are you wearing a Jimi Hendrix t-shirt?

[@DonBailey-od1de]

When you say CE you lose all credibility to me , and also saying that abortion is Controversial , its not Your not christian in any form Catholic , eastern or protestant.

[@ReligiosityPlus]

First, I say C.E. Because I had to use it in college and it became a habit. Second, I never said abortion is controversial, I said it was on a list of prohibitions which “could” imply it was practiced by early Christians (because they converted from the pagan faith and it’s likely they didn’t give up their old ways immediately.). I didn’t know using C.E. Disqualified me from the Christian faith. I must have missed that passage of scripture. :)

[@DonBailey-od1de]

@@ReligiosityPlus Do you celebrate earth day as no day of the year .but the day between the old and the new year ,? BC / AD Has been used nearly two thousand years Before Christ , after divinity. But incrementally bring in Before common era / Common era , then bring in a new calendar with Earth day as a day between in old and new year , and the Christian Marking of time from the birth of Christ is out the door into the history bin. ( They don't teach you that in college , it's a Conspiracy theory, that just happens to be fact )

[@pdyt2009]

Re prohibitions, it doesn't necessarily mean such things (like abortion) were practiced by the Christian community. It's much more likely that it's a reference to a practice in the culture as a whole.

[@TheZenGarden_]

The Elohiym of the Tanakh does not condone any mans "religion" at all.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

What does Tanakh mean? It means the canonical Hebrew Bible. Canonical.

[@TheZenGarden_]

@@anthonyhulse1248 The word "canonical" comes from the Greek, which has nothing to do with the Tanakh of the Hebrews. So take your European constructs and use it on the pagan "religion" of Europeans.

[@TheZenGarden_]

@@anthonyhulse1248 The word “Tanakh” is an acronym of its three parts: Torah (The Five Books of Mosheh), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings).

[@MitchellRose-gi2ln]

I babtise in my shower.

[@nannimanfrin8420]

CE? Jewish? Oh please

[@cf-kw5qo]

should be BC AND AC

[@MasterKeyMagic]

it disproves Protestantism and profoundly supports evidence that the Catholic Church is apostolic

[@williampawson5476]

You lost me at "CE".... It is AD.... Year of our Lord ... You did it again at "BCE"... Your WOKENESS is showing...

[@ReligiosityPlus]

I had to use it in college and it became a habit. Nothing more, nothing less. You won’t find too many “Woke” things on this channel.

[@avibhagan]

12 apostles ? I read the bible and there are 13 apostles. Anyone who says that there are 12 must be illiterate and cannot read. Mary was an apostle . Jesus was very, very CLEAR that men and women are equal and he appeared to women and chastised the men for their misogyny and for not believing the women on the ground that they were women. Peter the misogynist , hated Mary, and he defied Jesus , by writing about Mary as being lesser than the other 12 men. this is all very very clear and apparent to anyone who READS the bible and the gospels. It also explains why Mary's Gospel was removed from the Bible. Mary's gospel is just as valid as the other 4 (well 5 when you consider Thomas's) . 6 in total. But the misogynist Church, could not be misogynist IF they included Mary's gospel and counted Mary as an Apostle . Peter changed the teachings of Jesus to maintain misogyny ! The BIBLE EXPOSES ALL of this to those who READ IT.

[@jimmytphillips8828]

This was back when Gentiles were being Engrafted into Israel and before The Churches went on their own way adding Sunday and Pagan Holidays into the Faith....😊 Obviously we still had Faith in Yeshuah Ha'Machiach and Followed Sabbath, Commandments and Feast Days 😊 Just like we should today 😊

[@JordanBrown-km5kf]

Judiazer. (Acts 20:7) “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight Here you can se that the Eucarist is present in Acts as Jesus instructed at the Last Supper. To break bread. Jesus, our Lord, resurrected on Sunday, the first day. It is the day we partake in worship of God as it is the creation day. The Church is new. Orthodox pascha (Easter) is still passover, and Orthodox Christmas is still marks his birth.

[@jimmytphillips8828]

@JordanBrown-km5kf And Ha'Satan is still the Satan.... May Yah forgive your ignorance and wake up your Eyes to the Truth. I grew up believing the same things you believe. Easter is a Saxon goddess of fertility rights. December 25th is Nimrods Birthday. Google it. You cannot mix Jesus/Yeshuah and Paganism. That's Sin..... Have a Blessed Day and go on your way,.... Shalom

[@JordanBrown-km5kf]

@@jimmytphillips8828 Are you Jewish? If not, cut this nonsense. Your Nimrod theory is ridiculous. We celebrate Christmas, on both calenders, on that day as it is the day of the Dedication of the Temple. And given the body of Christ is the new Temple, not made with hands. It is tradition that his birth is the dedication of the temple that is his incarnation of the flesh. And you have no idea what I was saying when I said Pascha or Passover which is when Jesus was crucified, and resurrected.

[@JordanBrown-km5kf]

Your blessing is very hallow if you are ignoring what I said about Pascha. As it is passover which Jesus Christ was crucified on. And rose again on. As for Christmas. Your theory is ridiculous as it is likely the day Jesus was born. When the Logos was incarnated in the flesh. Why this day? The day of the Dedication of the Temple is that same day. It is the reason Hannakah and Christmas are on the same day. Jesus' body is the new temple. And as he said, it would be raised up in 3 days. So the creation of this new temple was that same day. Lastly, if you are not Jewish, then stop this. You are just doing yourself a disservice.

[@jimmytphillips8828]

@JordanBrown-km5kf Faith in Yeshuah Ha'Machiach and Follow Yah's Sabbath, Commandments and Feast Days. Period! Have a Great Day 👍

[@martinsibeanusi4317]

Didache does not mean teachings. It is a sentence. Di da che. This means my husband thought. It is not Greek. It is Igbo language.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

Didache is Greek.