Featured Didache text origin 1056 AD first pub. 1883.

Note: most Christian scholars date the Didache as being written between 50 and 70 AD.

The minority view (and previously held view) is that the Didache was written between 120 and 180 AD.

A handful of scholars date the Didache between the 3rd and early 4th Centuries.

The reason for the earlier date is the internal evidence suggesting a primitive church structure.

On any account, we know the Didache was written prior to the early 4th Century AD.

Two fragments dating from the 5th Century AD are on display Sackler Library at Oxford.

A Greek copy of the Didache dating from 1056 was discovered in the 19th Century.

Eusebius (324 AD), Athanasius of Alexandria (367 AD), Rufinus (380 AD) and Nikephoros (810 AD) reference the Didache (although not as Scripture itself).

 

I can help a little.

Nettles is not a scholar.

Nettle believes that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "satanic" doctrine that has influenced churches.

Nettle teaches that the Trinity - God in three persons - is pagan.

Nettles declares that the NKJV, ESV, NIV, ect. are written in a language that, unlike the KJV, does not appeal to God.

Nettles belongs to the Worldwide Church of God.

(From the website you provided)

When you don't like facts and turn to the internet to disprove them you will always find what you ate looking for.

 

He ignores several facts.

There is a Didache that dates back to 1056. It was found in 1873, published in 1883 and published in English in 1884.

But he pretends this is all we know of the Didache. He ignores several facts, like the Didache from the 5th Century and the Didache in the writings of older works.

He ignores that several earlier writers (from the 4th Century to the 9th Century) quoted the Didache. Athanasius of Alexandria (367 AD) and Rufinus (380 AD), for example, included tge Didache among apocrypha.

More than that, however, is the fact that you ate trusting a non-scholar against scholars because he says what you want to hear.

You are trusting a man who believes the idea of a Truine God is a demonic doctrine invented at a late date.

You are trusting somebody who believes that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit is a satanic doctrine that was introduced into Christianity in the 6th Century.

You are trusting somebody without who researched the topic just as you did, by selecting what he wanted to find and incorporating it into his desired position.

 

The fact is we know, without doubt, that the Didache was composed at least by the early 4th Century. Most experts believe it was written between 50 and 70 AD. The minority view is that it was written in the early 2nd Century (around 120 AD). It was cited several times early 3rd Century se we know it was well established by 320 AD.

 

I didn't mention Origin, but what those who quoted the Didache prior to the 5th Century would have been quoting texts earlier than the texts we have from around 400 AD and 1056 AD.

Think of it this way. We do not have any complete book of the NT until around 200 AD. The notion that these books, or letters, did not exist prior to this time is wrong.

Let me ask you - how did those men living in the early fourth century reference something that did not exist, in your opinion, until the 1800's?

How did we get texts written around 400 AD from a document you believe was written in the 1800's?

Why I'd it no expert in the subject dates the Didache past the early 5th Century?

Why believe the word of somebody not educated in the subject who also believes that Matthew 28:18-20 is a forgery written after the 5th Century as satanic doctrine?

 

Eusebius (324 AD), Athanasius of Alexandria (367 AD), Rufinus (380 AD) and Nikephoros (810 AD) reference the Didache.

The completed manuscript was discovered at a later date, but partial manuscripts exist.

Do you believe that the book of Mark is a forgery? By your standard it must be. We have no copy prior to the 3rd century - just the testimony of others and partial texts.

 

No. When we consider these types of subjects we need to reference experts in the field. Nelte has an agenda to discredit the Didache because he rejects the idea of God in three persons.

 

I gave you the dates of the Didache manuscripts and the early writings.

You used Google to find Frank's site. It should be much easier to find verification that the Didache is much older than you and Frank think.

Consider that you have dismissed all experts on the subject (including those of "regular" churches) in favor of relying on your "expert".

Your "expert":

1. Was fired from being a pastor because of his teachings.

2. Believes every translator has misinterpreted Scriptute.

3. Believes baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit is a satanic doctrine added centuries after the Bible.

4. Believes the idea of predestination is based on mistranslations of Scriptute and accepted by the biblically illiterate.

5. Believes the idea God is three persons is a demonic doctrine added to Christianity later in history.

6. Rejects the dating of the Didache because it is Trinitarian and does not fit when he wants the idea of a Triune God to have come about.


You made a very poor decision in looking for evidence that is not there.

 

I'm not. There is no reason. He is what this board would consider a heretic.

Members can read his views on the link you provided and decide for themselves, just like I did.

 

I will post a few issues from the website:

"Clearly the Holy Spirit is not "God". It is THE POWER which God the Father and Jesus Christ both use, and which power flows out from them."

"Satan has deceived "the whole world" (Revelation 12:9), and that unfortunately also includes you and me. And one of Satan’s greatest and most successful major deceptions for the people of God has been the trinitarian baptism formula in Matthew 28:19"

"The Apostle John clearly contrasted the word "Father" with the word "Son". The expression "the Word" doesn’t really go with "the Father". The expression "the Word" really goes with the title "God". "Father" implies a family relationship; but "Word" doesn’t really fit into a family relationship.

The forger clearly did not understand how the mind of the Apostle John worked and reasoned! So the forger goofed when he inserted the expression "the Word" instead of inserting the far more appropriate expression "the Son"."

"THE CONCEPT OF GOD BEING THREE HYPOSTASES [PERSONS] IS TOTALLY AND UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY PAGAN, AND IT IS AN INSULT TO THE DIGNITY AND POWER AND MIGHT OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD!"