Question for the Orthodox Preterists onthe Didache

[Bill the Cat]

I realize it's not scripture, but the dating is post 70 AD. What sez ye of the bolded passage? Wasn't Nero supposed to have already fulfilled this part?

Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

[Bill the Cat]

can someone edit the title and put a space in between on and the??

[Bill the Cat]

ity!!

[Faramir]

Well since there are no other takers I will give my very meager opinion.

I must confess my unitl recently utter and complete ignorance of the Didache.

After reading your question post yesterday, I did a little (very little) research (by research I don't mean anything scholarly, I mean what I could find on the internet in 20 min.)

So keep in mind this is not well thought out, but just a reflection after very little exposure to the Didache.

First of all, like you said the Didache is not scripture.

Second. From the research (such as it is) that I did, I saw a date anywhere from AD 50-150 with AD65-80 as the most likely date for the Didache.

Third. It is obvious to me from my one (and only) reading of the Didache that a very large portion is dependent on NT scripture (or if you accept an early date it could be possible, although unlikely that some of the scripture writers used the Didache as a source). So the writer of the Didache could have just paraphrased Furthermore, the passage you highlighted is very similar to the portions of the Olivet Discourse and the Johnian epistles.

Third, the passage sounds like it is describing the Anti-Chirsts (a term that is found only in the Johnian epistles and if I am not mistaken always or almost always in the plural). Preterist do not say that Nero was the Anti-Christ, we say that Nero was the beast of Revelation (along with the Roman Empire which he ruled). It is only Futurist who place the Anti-Christ in the book of Revelation even though there is no mention of that term in that book.

Fourth. Earlier Christians (Hymeneans [sp?]) had misinformed opinions of the end time, why not the writer of the Didache.

Fifth. I don't have a fifth.

How’s that Bill?

Your friend,

Faramir.

[studyhound]

Bill the Cat:

I realize it's not scripture, but the dating is post 70 AD. What sez ye of the bolded passage? Wasn't Nero supposed to have already fulfilled this part?

Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Man you really had me thinking, well till I pulled up the Didache out and read it again.

The Didache is not really an original work, but a collection of the teaching of the 12 apostles (who taught what Jesus taught them) and it seems Paul also). So they took heavily from the New Testament, it also seem not direct quotes most of the time.

So aside from the questionable timing of the writing and the fact that it is not scripture, it appears to be a collection of the writings of the apostles and they are comments on life and a paraphrase and a slight commentary of their (Jesus and the apostles) writings.

Just a quick thought.

:studyhound:

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 04:33 PM post located here
Faramir:

Well since there are no other takers I will give my very meager opinion.

I must confess my unitl recently utter and complete ignorance of the Didache.

That's OK. I only knew of it from my studies in Mormonism.

After reading your question post yesterday, I did a little (very little) research (by research I don't mean anything scholarly, I mean what I could find on the internet in 20 min.)

So keep in mind this is not well thought out, but just a reflection after very little exposure to the Didache.

I understand. It is a really good read and good to see how the Early Church viewed Christianity.

First of all, like you said the Didache is not scripture.

But quotes it almost explicitly, albeit some phrases are changed a little.

Second. From the research (such as it is) that I did, I saw a date anywhere from AD 50-150 with AD65-80 as the most likely date for the Didache.

From what I observe 100 AD seems to be the concensus

• Jonathan Draper writes in a footnote of Gospel Perspectives, v. 5, p. 284), "A new consensus is emerging for a date c. 100 AD."

Third. It is obvious to me from my one (and only) reading of the Didache that a very large portion is dependent on NT scripture (or if you accept an early date it could be possible, although unlikely that some of the scripture writers used the Didache as a source). So the writer of the Didache could have just paraphrased Furthermore, the passage you highlighted is very similar to the portions of the Olivet Discourse and the Johnian epistles.

You are correct to see parallels, although some are interpretations. The parallels are to be found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. And primarily Matthew, roughly twenty verses, in fact. Of Lukan material, the parallels are limited to four verses, with one very significant example. see here for the full examination of these texts.

A bit of notice from the article shows a neat bit for me and futurists like me.

The last notable irregular is in verse seven, which reads "the Lord is coming "epavow" the clouds of heaven. "Epanow" is a seldom-used preposition meaning "above." The canonical text reads "the Son of Man is coming "epi" or "upon" the clouds of heaven." But words are generative of place.

The words chosen by Matthew and the writer of the Didache are indicative of position in relation to the clouds, not metaphorical of "coming in judgment using the clouds"

Third, the passage sounds like it is describing the Anti-Chirsts (a term that is found only in the Johnian epistles and if I am not mistaken always or almost always in the plural). Preterist do not say that Nero was the Anti-Christ, we say that Nero was the beast of Revelation (along with the Roman Empire which he ruled). It is only Futurist who place the Anti-Christ in the book of Revelation even though there is no mention of that term in that book.

Didn't you already do a third last bit?

But seriously, you are actually incorrect. the passage I bolded refers to a singular world-deceiver.

and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning.

It shows the expectation that the one who is the "world deceiver" would deceive the world into believing him the Son of God. The world deceiver is described as being "like a son of God," while Matthew just calls him the "Antichrist" and mentions his side-kick, the false prophet. In the Didache the world deceiver "does miracles" and in Matthew, the Antichrist "gives great miracles."

Fourth. Earlier Christians (Hymeneans [sp?]) had misinformed opinions of the end time, why not the writer of the Didache.

Because if the Didache was post 70 AD, then there was a significant event (the destruction of Jerusalem) to point to and say that is no longer necessary to wait for this quoted "return"

Fifth. I don't have a fifth.

How’s that Bill?

Your friend,

Faramir.

Thanks Faramir. Something else caught my eye. The writer(s?) of the Didache apparently believed in 2 (at least) resurrections just as futurists do.

6. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an out-spreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; 7. yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. 8. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Curious... A document written so close to the source that believes in a resurrection BEFORE His coming on the clouds with His saints.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 01:08 PM post located here
studyhound:

Man you really had me thinking, well till I pulled up the Didache out and read it again.

If I didn't get you thinking at least a little, then I failed my intent miserably...

The Didache is not really an original work, but a collection of the teaching of the 12 apostles (who taught what Jesus taught them) and it seems Paul also). So they took heavily from the New Testament, it also seem not direct quotes most of the time.

See my reply to Faramir on this topic

So aside from the questionable timing of the writing and the fact that it is not scripture, it appears to be a collection of the writings of the apostles and they are comments on life and a paraphrase and a slight commentary of their (Jesus and the apostles) writings.

So are you indicating that it was not a practical life implementation writing? I may have to disagree there with ya hound. The more probable theory is, that the manual was for the instruction of converts of Gentile birth. It was a "how to" manual if you will.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here
Bill the Cat:

I understand. It is a really good read and good to see how the Early Church viewed Christianity.

And the Early Church was wrong on multiple issues. An earlier person, Hymeaneaus, was frightfully wrong. It is not Scripture, and while interesting, is simply that. Interesting.

But quotes it almost explicitly, albeit some phrases are changed a little.

I have to just get this in .... so? The Devil quoted Scripture albeit some phrase were changed a little.

From what I observe 100 AD seems to be the concensus

I have to dig up something I have on this.

If I were you I suggest you check out the LXX. I suspect you may be in for a surprise. I don't know, but I suspect and the LXX talks about YHWH and clouds quite a bit. And I have proven Scripturally that the words are not generative of place.

.... while Matthew just calls him the "Antichrist" and mentions his side-kick, the false prophet. In the Didache the world deceiver "does miracles" and in Matthew, the Antichrist "gives great miracles."

Did I miss something, cause Matthew (canonical) never uses anything like the above.

Because if the Didache was post 70 AD, then there was a significant event (the destruction of Jerusalem) to point to and say that is no longer necessary to wait for this quoted "return"

It could be wrong. Iraneaus said Jesus lived to be fifty.

Thanks Faramir. Something else caught my eye. The writer(s?) of the Didache apparently believed in 2 (at least) resurrections just as futurists do.

Which Scripture does not teach. You might as well point to Walvoord. One mistaken noncanonical writer. It happens. And I don't see in what you quoted at all two resurrections BTW, though irrelevant cause Scripture makes it impossible.

Curious... A document written so close to the source that believes in a resurrection BEFORE His coming on the clouds with His saints.

Curious, no millenium? (that was very tongue in cheek)

[Faramir]

Thanks for resopnding to my post Bill the Cat and Dee Dee. I would like to respond, but don't have time right now, I may not have time until Monday, but I have not forgotten.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Did I screw up and use "notice" tags instead of "quote" tags in my post

[studyhound]

Bill the Cat:

If I didn't get you thinking at least a little, then I failed my intent miserably...

Well I glad some one is still trying

See my reply to Faramir on this topic

Saw it seems we agree. . . Now thats a good thing right

So are you indicating that it was not a practical life implementation writing? I may have to disagree there with ya hound. The more probable theory is, that the manual was for the instruction of converts of Gentile birth. It was a "how to" manual if you will.

No,no I totally agree that it was a practical guide to the believer, the writer in trying to be complete he included some things that were either fulfilled or he had a totaly wrong understnading of, which happened alot in the years after the last of the apostles died, save John. But even he had problems dealing with heritics in the first generation.

:studyhound:

[Reader]

Bill
The writer(s?) of the Didache apparently believed in 2 (at least) resurrections just as futurists do.


Dee Dee
Which Scripture does not teach. You might as well point to Walvoord. One mistaken noncanonical writer. It happens. And I don't see in what you quoted at all two resurrections BTW, though irrelevant cause Scripture makes it impossible.

There are two resurrections taught in Scripture. The "first resurrection" is spiritual. It is the regeneration to new spiritual life of the saints' souls by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit. The souls who have been "born again" by the Holy Spirit are not subject to the second death.

". . And they (the saints) lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years . . .this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power . . ." Revelation 20:4b,5b,6a

Then there is the final and general resurrection of all in the graves on the last day. (John 5:28&29)

Thus, believers experience two resurrections; spiritual resurrection of soul at conversion and the physical resurrection of body at the last day. The saints only experience one death, being delivered from the second death.

Unbelievers only experience one resurrection; physical resurrection on the last day, unto judgment. But they will experience two deaths. The first in this life (Heb. 9:27) and the second death in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)

[Glenn P]

Yesterday @ 09:27 AM post located here
Bill the Cat:

Thanks Faramir. Something else caught my eye. The writer(s?) of the Didache apparently believed in 2 (at least) resurrections just as futurists do.

6. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an out-spreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; 7. yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. 8. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Curious... A document written so close to the source that believes in a resurrection BEFORE His coming on the clouds with His saints.

"Before"? Well hang on, this says nothing of a resurrection of the saonts, followed by a millennium, then another resurrection at the time of His Coming. In fact, it looks to me as though if the writers had believed that the dead in Christ will be raised and then (moments later) all the world will see Him coming, they would have written the same thing. It looks as though your a little to anxious to find premillennialism here. Now, even if it were here, I'd say it was wrong, but it really doesn't appear to be taught here.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here
Reader:



There are two resurrections taught in Scripture.

You need to have the context of my comment in mind. I was speaking to Bill. He beleives in multiple physical resurrections, two or three.

The "first resurrection" is spiritual. It is the regeneration to new spiritual life of the saints' souls by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit. The souls who have been "born again" by the Holy Spirit are not subject to the second death.

". . And they (the saints) lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years . . .this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power . . ." Revelation 20:4b,5b,6a

Then there is the final and general resurrection of all in the graves on the last day. (John 5:28&29)

Thus, believers experience two resurrections; spiritual resurrection of soul at conversion and the physical resurrection of body at the last day. The saints only experience one death, being delivered from the second death.

Unbelievers only experience one resurrection; physical resurrection on the last day, unto judgment. But they will experience two deaths. The first in this life (Heb. 9:27) and the second death in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14)

[/quote]

I agree totally with you.

[Bill the Cat]

12-06-2003 @ 05:10 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:



And the Early Church was wrong on multiple issues. An earlier person, Hymeaneaus, was frightfully wrong. It is not Scripture, and while interesting, is simply that. Interesting.

While I agree with you that it is not scripture per se it does quote from scripture almost directly in most cases. And to equate the Didache which was purported a compilation of the teachings of the church at the time with open heresy like Hymeaneaus is IMO just wrong to do.

I have to just get this in .... so? The Devil quoted Scripture albeit some phrase were changed a little.

Actually the Devil quoted scripture exactly, although out of context. There are surprisingly few syntactical differences (and none substantial) here between the Mattean text and the Didache.

I have to dig up something I have on this.

If I were you I suggest you check out the LXX. I suspect you may be in for a surprise. I don't know, but I suspect and the LXX talks about YHWH and clouds quite a bit. And I have proven Scripturally that the words are not generative of place.

Well, I read some of your stuff on "coming with the clouds" but am not convinced. The writer of the Didache most certainly seemed to think that Jesus would be above the clouds when He would come. [greek]epi[/greek] can mean over, on, at the time of, at, or to. It definitely has the possibility of being indicative of location. But the passage referred to by the Didache and within it's text refers to Jesus coming on the clouds after the resurrection of the saints only.

Did I miss something, cause Matthew (canonical) never uses anything like the above.

sorry, just quoting the article I linked in my post. It's his presupposition that the Abomination of Desolation is the "AntiChrist"/world deceiver

It could be wrong. Iraneaus said Jesus lived to be fifty.

And Against Heresies was written 100 years after Jesus' death (the subject of that discrepancy). The Didache was written roughly 30 yrs after the destruction of Rome (maybe earlier)

Which Scripture does not teach. You might as well point to Walvoord. One mistaken noncanonical writer. It happens. And I don't see in what you quoted at all two resurrections BTW, though irrelevant cause Scripture makes it impossible.

Scripture most definitely teaches 2 resurrections. You just believe that in this one instance that the word Anastasis means something different than it does the other 39 times it's used. I'm not quoting Walvoord, i'm quoting the didache. It's no more improper than quoting Jocephus.

Curious, no millenium? (that was very tongue in cheek)

Yep, after the First resurrection and Jesus' coming with the saints so we all can rule here for 1000 years.