The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Bishop Fulton Sheen said, "There are not 100 people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are however, millions who hate what they think is the Catholic Church."

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm

Well there is a whole lot of history not to like --

I personally I grew up in a catholic and Jewish neighborhood I was rasied a lutheran -- which did not mean a whole lot it was a label like coke or pepsi your family went someplace and you beleived something because it was the thing to do. As A child I knew nothing of Jews Catholics Lutherans Muslims to like or dislike. As a teen and a young man it was much the same.

I got saved when I was 12 and I went to church everywhere I was a lutheran I went to catholic charisimatic meetings I went to house meetings fundamentalist churches and penecostal churches I loved fellowshipping with all of them and was I interested in all these guys relationships with God.

On the other hand most of the places I went would not darken the door of each other all beleived that each other were deceived in little or big ways all beleived that they had the true light and path -- this has sawed on my soul for decades and I can not put my finger on you and say you are or aren't walking with God -- we would have to know each other a bit to make a call like that.

But further I will say that in most every church there are people that walk with god and people who don't -- most of the poeple I know would brand me as a heretic for suggesting that but because I have been where they haven't and because I have had the prriveldge to know hundreds if not thousands over the years in quite a mix of churches I think I can see things that many can't. On the other hand people are different than denominations and they are different than some of the people that are hired for money to be their father, pastor, teacher, shephard or whatever.

The bible has some hard things to say about these people and because of that I feel free to call what I see as sin sin. Denominations are preditory in nature, they are limited in nature, they codify traditions and teaching of mere men and make them equal with and in many cased they give more creeedance to mens words than Gods. They are physical empires -- christ said he was building a spiritual kingdom, in many cases the pastor or preacher puts himself out as Gods representative and rather than leading and guiding you into a more personal relationship with God where you can learn to hear from him and be taught of him what they want is a business you show up pay your tithe get a sermon that can be anything from politics to muses about leaves on trees or to something philosphical. And then you leave uninspired and return next week becasue it is your christian duty. Of mayb its your fire insurance policy depending where you go.

The point is that all of that is much the same place to place and even in my "Fundamentalist Charismatic and Pentecostal Circles that preach salvation I have found over time that the denominations and the preachers serve much the same purpose as in so called nominal churches on average the people will be more fervent there but the ministry is still largely self serving and equally bount by doctrines and traditions

Anyway I will flat out say the church veered off the road 1800 years ago. and when the protestants arrive on the scene in 1500 all they did was wife off the glass add a few stripes of their own and bingo your babylon is now my babylon so its all cool now -- no it isn't and that is the point of the post if you feel everything is swimming and AOK I'm not going to try to presude you different. But if you know in your heart of hearts that somwthing isn't right and all to many do -- I'm willing to point you to things to read that most people have never seen or heard of things that were written when argueably things were a lot more right on than they are now no matter what stripes you wear. People are hungry they are seeking.

The bible says that in the last days that the church will be restored, that the glory of the latter house will be greater than that of the former house. That tells me something ot tells me that we should look at the former house the early church to see what was there and it tells me that God is going to take a huge wrecking ball to all the denominations.

“Well there is a whole lot of history not to like –“

Yeah, but you have to realize that by far the bulk of the historical writings on the Catholic Church are no more accurate or unbiased than a Helen Thomas editorial on Ronald Reagan.

“On the other hand most of the places I went would not darken the door of each other all believed that each other were deceived in little or big ways all believed that they had the true light and path”

All churches are made up of humans, and so all are wrong about or ignorant of some things. That’s inevitable. However, having been a protestant and being now a Catholic, my view is that the protestant tradition is impoverished by comparison to the incredible intellectual, theological, and spiritual wealth of the Catholic Church. That doesn’t make me despise protestants, though. I just wish there were some way to share the wealth with them.

“But further I will say that in most every church there are people that walk with god and people who don't”

Grass is green, the sky is blue, water is wet…

“Denominations are predatory in nature, they are limited in nature, they codify traditions and teaching of mere men and make them equal with and in many cased they give more credence to men’s words than God’s.”

Sometimes. Sometimes things are dismissed as “teaching of mere men” that are actually guidance from the Holy Spirit.

“They are physical empires”

With regard to the Catholic Church, what we call the “visible church” has been of inestimable spiritual value.

“Christ said he was building a spiritual kingdom”

The goal is to get as many souls as possible into heaven. That means doing things in the earthly realm. If religious architecture and art aids in the saving of souls (which, historically, it has), then I have no quarrel with it.

“the pastor or preacher puts himself out as Gods representative and rather than leading and guiding you into a more personal relationship with God where you can learn to hear from him and be taught of him what they want is a business you show up pay your tithe get a sermon that can be anything from politics to muses about leaves on trees”

I considered those things when I decided to become a Catholic. Not every Catholic priest gives a suitable homily, of course, but I’ve never been ragged on to tithe or contribute to anything.

“The point is that all of that is much the same place to place”

Not entirely. I’m sure many people here could point you to places that are nothing like that.

“the ministry is still largely self serving and equally bount by doctrines and traditions”

Doctrines and traditions are, per se, good things…providing that they’re in line with the teachings of Our Lord.

“Anyway I will flat out say the church veered off the road 1800 years ago.”

I think you’re mistaken.

“if you feel everything is swimming and AOK”

Who in the world thinks that today? The only way that things are okay is that God is in His Heaven and His Plan is ticking along.

“People are hungry they are seeking.”

That’s because the left has hoodwinked them away from Christianity without giving them anything to replace it. Not that there is anything to replace it, of course.

“tells me that we should look at the former house the early church to see what was there and it tells me that God is going to take a huge wrecking ball to all the denominations”

The place where you get off the track there is that you don’t accept that the Catholic Church *is* the early church, right back to Our Lord’s words, “On this rock I will build my church.”

Now I know that you are a man of character and that you are a logical man being that you are a member of free republic. If John Kerry or any liberal would claim that they were in a line of legal sucession to be president you would demand to see proof. If John Kerry or the DNC said trust us its true you would not be disuaded. And what would you want a document in showing that George washington had signed over or handed over the presidential line to kerry -- you would need to know that washington indeed knew the forbs family and that they had contract where a transfer could be made -- and if this momentous occassion did occur then there should also be a historical record -- you would accept no less of Kerry. The man can only be president for 8 years --

With the claims of the Catholic Church you are talking about resting your soul for all of eternity on what you have been told. -- It would seem that there should be some serious investigative work done to on a fist hand basis see if these things be so.

You mentioned a sucession.

There is only one historian for the first three centuries of church history can you name that man?

If their theory is true, then the sucession of Peter would have to be the single most important issue in Church history. The establishment of that pedigree line to the first Pope would be listed in an official history just as the geneology of Christ is listed in two Gospels.

If that pedigree is not listed in the only offical history church history -- a history I might add that was paid for by the Roman Catholic Church -- then either it could not be found to be documented becasue no such pedigree existed -- or if it could not be found due to lost documents at least a histoical note would have been made of their existance and subsequent loss in that treatise. In reality the entire legacy of Rome and the Pope lies in that one book.

If you are serious about your catholisism you will find the book and read the first four sections to find your answer. Its completely your own choice: Men's words or documentation.

In the meantime I want to draw your attention to Clement of Rome one of the all important links in that chain of sucession -- you have been told the Pope is infallible this is a core doctrine it is not optional he either is or isn't and if he is not like with liberals and Kerry the house of cards goes tumbling down and we can not trust other biiger and more far reaching claims they make.

Clement of Rome is claimed to be in that line of sucession yet in his first letter to the Corinthians written in 95 -96 ad letter Clement makes no mention of his office nor his authority. His greeting to the corinthians is as a co-equal -- that in itself should send you strong warning signals

THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Secondly Clement confesses to a church that has been in Crisis its elders were tossed out by younger members that he has been tardy in responding

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves (At the church of rome), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;

In this letter Clement clearly misquotes verses

. For it is written, "The kind-hearted shall inhabit the land, and the guiltless shall be left upon it, but transgressors shall be destroyed from off the face of it."

) And again it saith, "They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant

He quotes from sources the Catholic Church has never recognized as scripture example: (4) adding, moreover, this gracious declaration Repent O house of Israel, of your iniquity.(5) Say to the children of My people, (Clement quoted this from the Apocrypha of Ezekiel) Though your sins reach from earth to heaven, I and though they be redder(6) than scarlet, and blacker than sackcloth, yet if ye turn to Me with your whole heart, and say, Father ! I will listen to you, as to a holy(7) people.

This is a quote from another book that the roman catholic church never recognized its from the book of enoch -- The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation. The fruitful earth, according to His will, brings forth food in abundance, at the proper seasons, for man and beast and all the living beings upon it, never hesitating, nor changing any of the ordinances which He has fixed. (Book of Enoch)The unsearchable places of abysses, and the indescribable arrangements of the lower world, are restrained by the same laws. The vast unmeasurable sea, gathered together by His working into various basins,(13) never passes beyond the bounds placed around it, but does as He has commanded.

This verse no scholar knows the book chapter or verse he is quoting here.-- And again it saith, "They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant

now try this: Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Are thse the words of the holy see? Jumbled up incorrect and patently false on the Pheonix? If John Kerry had told this story of the Pheonix on the campaign trail what would you have posted on FR.

Are you willing to risk all of eternity on traditions and words of men.

The Democrats said that the acres of documents on Bill Clinton were all false they blew off every witness -- if you open up the Catholic online encyclopedia and read about the inquistion the french hugeonoughts the anabaptists and even dozens of Roman Catholic Saints that they freely admit to killing themselves only to make them saints once they were dead and posed no more oposition to them.

I work with a roman catholic who is of the order of templars -- I don't recall the exact name of the order the man went to catholic school and a catholic collage and he can recite the slaughters of protestants and apostates his very order was attacked and murdered in france for financial gain. And the pope recently apologised to the eastern orthodix church for the sins the commited when the catholic church under orders from the pope looted the greek orthodox church in constantinopel and left it to be destroyed my the muslim onslaught. The document trail is all there for you reading.

May God bless you and enlighten your heart.

" It is said that there are references in the Didache from the Shepard of Hermes the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Barnabas."

Be careful of these books (Shepard, Barnabas & Thomas). The Fathers left them out of the canon for a reason. Thomas, for example, is very gnostic.

" What was common knowledge about the teachings of Christ the Apostles between 50 AD and 150 AD has all been but lost to us..."

Not in the Orthodox East. As I have commented before, I worship God on Sundys the same way my ancestors did 1700 + years ago and hold to their same religious beliefs.

By the way, I think it may be unfair to blame the Roman Church for the loss of the Didache. Given conditions in the West during the early centuries of the Church, it is not surprising that those copies of the Didache as existed in the West were lost.

“If their theory is true, then the sucession of Peter would have to be the single most important issue in Church history.”

No, actually the Passion and Resurrection are the most important issues.

“The establishment of that pedigree line to the first Pope would be listed in an official history just as the geneology of Christ is listed in two Gospels.”

You mean like this one?

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752)
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45)
147. Sylvester III (1045)
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
157. Alexander II (1061-73)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30)
165. Innocent II (1130-43)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81)
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978—)

I don’t know exactly how to prove it to you, but you’ve been told a lot of things about the Catholic Church that simply are not true.

“you have been told the Pope is infallible”

That’s another misconception. The Pope is only infallible in very limited circumstances, and then only when pronouncing on closely circumscribed matters of faith and morals. The Catholic Church does not and never has taught that every statement of the Pope is infallible.

“His greeting to the Corinthians is as a co-equal -- that in itself should send you strong warning signals”

Not at all. The very Latin title of the Pope – Pontifex Maximus – means “bridge builder.” He is not some oriental potentate, but is selected by a college of cardinals from among their number.

“Secondly Clement confesses to a church that has been in Crisis”

So what? The Church has weathered many crises. So many that its very survival is miraculous.

“In this letter Clement clearly misquotes verses”

Or works from another translation, or is translated incorrectly, or is paraphrasing. So what?

“He quotes from sources the Catholic Church has never recognized as scripture”

So? A Pope can’t be educated beyond the Catholic canon?

“Are thse the words of the holy see? Jumbled up incorrect and patently false on the Pheonix?”

Oh, come on. Why don’t you slam him for not knowing quantum physics while you’re at it. He was a man of his time. It’s neither useful or fair to slam him for that.

“you open up the Catholic online encyclopedia and read about the inquistion the french hugeonoughts the anabaptists and even dozens of Roman Catholic Saints that they freely admit to killing themselves only to make them saints once they were dead and posed no more oposition to them.”

In previous eras, religious wars were prosecuted on all sides. Go to Ireland and see what they have to say about Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange, and about the “famine walls” erected as late as the 19th century. For every bad thing you can bring up about the Catholic Church, there is a corresponding atrocity against them. And none of that means as much as you seem to think it does.

“went to catholic school and a catholic collage and he can recite the slaughters of protestants and apostates”

Uh, huh. And can he cite the slaughters of Catholics, or does he only care to remember things that make the Church look bad? By the way, how many people do you think were executed by the Inquisition?

“And the pope recently apologised to the eastern orthodix church for the sins the commited when the catholic church under orders from the pope looted the greek orthodox church in constantinopel”

Oh, my goodness. History according to Jack Chick. Constantinople was not sacked by “the Catholic Church,” nor under the orders of the Pope, nor was it a random act without context. Try a brief summary here:

http://www.fact-index.com/f/fo/fourth_crusade.html

“The document trail is all there for you reading.”

The trick is not reading. The trick is to learn to spot distortion and fabrication.

“May God bless you and enlighten your heart.”

Back atcha.

In a post on this thread some one responded to the question of the popes infalibility -- that somwhow it did not apply at all to what clement of rome wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians -- complete misquotes of scripture quoting from what the cathloic church calls heretical books and of course stating that in egypt in a particular city there is a real pheonix bird that gets raised every 500 years.

So to make it clear according to their own words and doctrines as to whether Clement of Romes words as one of the men in sucession to St. Peters throne read the following and decide for yourself.

Only in the year 1870, at the First Vatican Council, did Pope Pius IX succeed in turning this teaching into a dogma, in spite of the protest of many Catholics, who even preferred to leave this church and found their own community (of the Old Catholics) than to accept so absurd a dogma. By virtue of the definition of the Vatican Council, the pope is infallible when he, as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, defines or proclaims the truths of the faith "ex cathedra," that is, officially, as the head of the Church.

so in 1870 under pope pius IX this doctrine was pushed through and as Pastor and teacher as this man expresses the truth of the faith he is infallible -- and clement of rome was certainly expressing the truths of the faith as he saw them which are pretty ragged at best. Now if I were to stake my life on this man his infalibility would have to be better than a person who clearly does not even have command of the scripture he is quoting or preaching fables of pheonixs as being the truth.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

There is a written record for all who care to study it. There are writings and historical documents for all to inspect from the first three centuries and when we read them we get a picture of a people that generation by generation were losing their way. And that by the time of the cannon of scriptures the declaring of a pope and a central chuerch in rome -- we have a confession from catholic saint after catholic saint that they had lost the office of Apostle they had lost the office of prophet they had lost the gifts of the spirit and miracles that had once been common place were hardly known -- and a professional preisthood rich in traditions and teachings of men sought to fill that gap that the holy spirit had once heald in the church. In fundamentalist terms the church had backslidden they were lost and they could no longer find their way back to what Christ and the Apostles had taught.

If so then this man made pope would have restored the office of prophet and apostles and restored all the gifts and miracles -- people would have been healed by his shadow as peter, shreds of his cloaks would have healed like paul in the book of Acts. The authority of the pope is like the american dollar, it has no value to it other than what people are willing to ascribe to it.

The Didache was written before 50 A.D.

It was written by Barnabus and the Apostle Paul.

It was brought to Peter, James, and John as the primary example of what they were preaching to the Gentiles.

It was accepted, and the rest is history.

I am very favorable to the didache, and the epistle of barnabas and pauls letter to the laodiceans.

However we can't say everything you said with certainty. There is no record of the documents original date of being published. Part of it is in the greek text epistle of barnabas but is omitted in the latin text -- the didache was approved in some of the early codecs and was read in the 2nd and early third century -- it was rejected in the Laodicean synod in 368 AD when the canon of scripture was named. There is no evidence that the apostle paul wrote it or any part of it.

From what I have read it was a catacism that was given to new beleivers in the coptic and eastern churches -- the status and use in the early catholic church is not clear.

Read in the didache also with Barnabas, for example, is included in the _Codex Sinaiticus 4th century pre canon, The Codex Constantinopolitanus, and Codex Hierosolymitanus (1056 CE) Clement of Alexandria quotes it as scripture and Origen terms it a "Catholic Epistle." Barnabas 16:5 quotes Enoch 89:55, 66, 67 and Barnabas chapter 4 reads "as Enoch says". Enoch was recognized as scripture in the first century by the current new testament book of Jude, in the second century by Barnabas and Athenagoras, and in the third century by Clement of Alexandria, by Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

Josephus claims exactly 22 Jewish (OT) books: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns. 90 AD

Council of Jamnia establishes canon of Hebrew Bible 90-100 AD AD (Old Testament books, called "The Writings," are established as part of Roman Christian canon: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles. This would not be done by true Nazorean Gnostics in the lineage of Life who rejected the Psalms in favor of the Qulasta and Odes.)

Synod of Elvira prohibits eating, marriage between Christians and Jews 306 AD

Edict of Milan: Constantine establishes official toleration of Christianity 313 AD

Constantine decrees Sunday as official Roman-Christian day of rest 321 AD

Eusebius' canon list 325 AD

Trullan Canons 592 AD -- Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read 'of Judith, one'; of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles (NPNF2, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Apostolical Canons, Canon LXXXV). * Laodicean synod 364 AD banned all unapproved texts – we can assume that carried a death penalty as other edicts of the time did.

First Nicene Council separates the celebration of Easter from that of the Jewish Passover 325

Constantine requests 50 copies of sacred Scriptures from Eusebius

è codex Sinaiticus, 331 AD Constantius forbids, under penalty of death, marriage of a Jew with a Christian woman, and circumcision of slaves. 339 AD

codex Sinaiticus - Old Testament, complete New Testament (Metzger, 42-6).

B codex Vaticanus - both Testaments + Apocrypha (except Maccabees - Metzger, 47f.; of "undisputed precedence" as a textual authority for the Gospels - Nestle-Aland, 11) 350 AD

Athanasius' festal letter, defining canon of Christian Scripture in Catholic Church 367 AD

Christians destroy the library of Alexandria, the last repository of "pagan" [Greek, Roman, etc.] science, literature, philosophy, in the West) 400’s The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.

In 383 C.E., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.

In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 C.E. ), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698) . The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.

This is some of what I found.

This is one analysis of the Didache, such as claims that it was written by Barnabus and Paul, and is in fact what was presented to the Council:

THE DIDACHE
(The Teaching)

with comments by
Ben H. Swett
30 January 1998

The Greek word didache means "teaching." The Didache is the short title of an ancient document that contains some very early Christian doctrines. Although a document of that name is referred to by several ancient writers, it apparently was lost. It was re-discovered in Constantinople in 1875, in a manuscript dated 1056 that also included several other documents either known or referred to as having been written before AD 150.

The Didache seems to consist of five parts, here shown as chapters although these divisions are not in the document. The first part shows what a genuine teacher of Christian righteousness will say and how he or she will go about teaching. The second part deals with the question of clean and unclean foods, and outlines procedures for baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist and the love-feast. The third sets policies on the treatment of apostles and prophets by members of the congregation. The fourth organizes the church, and the fifth briefly summarizes teachings concerning the second coming of Christ at end of the age.

This translation of the Didache is not copyrighted.

Chapter I -- On Righteousness

1:1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and the difference between the two ways is great.

"The two ways" is an ancient teaching. In his farewell address to the children of Israel, Moses said, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore chose life, that you and your descendants may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19) The same two ways are found in Jeremiah 21:8 and Matthew 7:13-14.

The Epistle of Barnabas states it this way: "There are two ways of teaching and of power, one of light and one of darkness, and there is a great difference between these two ways. For on the one are stationed the light-giving angels of God; on the other the angels of Satan. And the one is Lord from all eternity and to all eternity, whereas the other is Lord of the season of iniquity that now is." (Barnabas 18:1-2)

1:2 The way of life is this: first, you shall love the God who made you; second, your neighbor as yourself, and whatever you would not have done to you, do not do to another.

These are the two great commandments (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18) according to Jesus (Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:29-31, Luke 10:25-28), plus the negative form of the Golden Rule, "Do not do to another what you would not want done to you."

The negative form of the Golden Rule is not in the New Testament, although the thought is in Romans 13:10. It is found in the literature of many religions and philosophies: Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, Islamic. It provides a basis for self-restraint; and in practice, it can change a person from harmful to harmless (from negative to neutral in terms of effect on others).

Jesus taught the positive form of the Golden Rule: "Do for another what you would want done for you" (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31). It provides a basis for personal initiative; and in practice, it can change a person from harmless to helpful (from neutral to positive in terms of effect on others). Thus, by the result it produces, the positive form of the Golden Rule is a higher ethic, properly seen as building upon and going beyond the negative form of the Golden Rule.

1:3 And the teaching of these maxims is this: bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast on behalf of those who persecute you; for what thanks is there, if you love them that love you? Do not even Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you will not have an enemy.

Matthew 5:43-47, Luke 6:27-35, Romans 12:14

1:4 Abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts. If anyone gives you a blow on your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you will be perfect [full-grown, fully-mature]. If anyone compels you to go a mile, go with him two; if anyone takes your cloak, give him your coat also; if anyone takes from you what is yours, do not ask for it back nor try to use force.

"Abstain from fleshly and bodily lusts" is a very terse summary of numerous teachings throughout the New Testament. (e.g., Matthew 5:27-30, Ephesians 4:22, I Thessalonians 4:3-5, I John 2:16-17). "Turn the other cheek, go the second mile, and give your coat also" are in Matthew 5:39-41 and Luke 6:29.

1:5 Give to everyone who asks of you, and do not demand it back; for the Father wants something from his own free gifts to be given to all. Blessed is he who gives according to the commandment, for he is guiltless; but woe to him who receives; for if one who receives is actually in need, he is guiltless; but whoever receives when not in need will have to explain why he received and for what purpose; in prison he will be interrogated concerning the things he has done, and he will not depart from there until he has paid the last penny.

"Give to everyone who asks of you" is in Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:30. Paul quoted Jesus as saying, "It is more blessed to give than receive." (Acts 20:35) "Until you have paid the last penny" is in Matthew 5:26 but not in this context.

1:6 Yes, truly it has been said about this: "Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom to give."

As far as I can tell, this saying is not anywhere in the Bible.

2:1 And the teaching of the second commandment is this: 2 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery; you shall not seduce boys; you shall not fornicate. You shall not steal. You shall not be a fortune-teller; you shall not practice sorcery. You shall not kill a child by abortion nor slay it when born. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. 3 You shall not commit perjury; you shall not give false testimony; you shall not speak evil; you shall not bear malice; 4 you shall not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double-tongue is a snare of death. 5 Your word shall not be false or empty, but confirmed by deeds. 6 You shall not be greedy or rapacious or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. You shall not take up an evil plot against your neighbor. 7 You shall not hate anyone, but some you shall rebuke, and some you shall pray for, and some you shall love more than your own soul.

This teacher starts most statements of moral instruction with "You shall not..." Almost every thought in this paragraph is in Barnabas 19, sometimes verbatim, although not in this sequence.

3:1 My child, flee from everything that is evil and everything that is like it. 2 Do not be wrathful, for wrath leads to murder, nor jealous nor contentious nor quarrelsome, for from all these murder ensues. 3 My child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to fornication, nor a filthy-talker nor a lewd-looker, for from all these adulteries ensue. 4 My child, do not be an interpreter of omens, since it leads to idolatry, nor an enchanter nor an astrologer nor a magical purifier, nor wish to see them, for from all these idolatry arises. 5 My child, do not be a liar, for lying leads to theft, nor avaricious nor conceited, for from all these thefts are produced. 6 My child, do not be a complainer, since it leads to blasphemy, nor self-willed nor evil-minded, for from all these blasphemies are produced. 7 Be meek, for the meek will inherit the earth. 8 Be long-suffering and merciful and guileless and peaceable and good, and revere always the words you have heard.

This is a different teacher. He habitually addresses people as "My child" and he includes cause-and-effect explanations with his moral instructions. "The meek shall inherit the earth" is in Psalm 37:11 and Matthew 5:5.

3: 9 You shall not exalt yourself, nor let your soul be presumptuous. Your soul shall not be joined with the lofty, but with the righteous and humble you shall walk. 10 You shall accept what befalls you as good, knowing that without God nothing happens.

Oops, the first teacher interrupts the second. These thoughts are found almost verbatim in Barnabas (19:3, 19:6).

4:1 My child, remember night and day him who speaks the word of God to you; honor him as the Lord, for where his lordship is proclaimed, there is the Lord. 2 Seek out daily the faces of the saints, that you may rest in their words.

The second teacher again. This document captures specific styles of teaching so thoroughly it invokes the "voice" of the teacher. Who taught like this? See the first epistle attributed to John. Although the authorship of that letter is in doubt, whoever it was certainly sounds like this.

4:3 You shall not desire schism, but shall set at peace those who contend. You shall judge righteously; you shall not show partiality when rebuking for transgressions. 4 You shall not vacillate about whether a thing will be or will not be. 5 You shall not be one who stretches out his hands to receive but one who draws them back when someone is giving.

The first teacher. All these thoughts are in Barnabas (19:12, 19:11, 19:4, 19:7, 19:9).

4:6 If you have anything in your hands, give a ransom for your sins. 7 You shall not hesitate to give; neither shall you grumble when giving, for you know who is the fair paymaster of your reward. 8 You shall not turn away from him who is actually in need, but share with your brother in all things and not say things are your own, for if you are partners in what is imperishable, how much more so in perishable things?

Barnabas 19:11, 19:8

4:9 You shall not remove your hand from your son or your daughter, but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

Barnabas 19:6

4:10 You shall not command in your bitterness your slave or your maid who hope in the same God as yourself, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both; for he comes not with regard for reputation, but to those whom the Spirit has prepared. 11 And you slaves, subordinate yourselves to your masters in shame and fear, as to an image of God.

Barnabas 19:7 -- with the two sentences in the opposite order.

4:12 You shall hate all hypocrisy, and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord. 13 You shall not abandon the commandments of the Lord, but guard what you have received, neither adding nor subtracting anything. 14 You shall confess your transgressions in the congregation; and you shall not come to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

Barnabas 19:2b, 19:11b, 19:12b

5:1 But this is the way of death: first of all, it is evil and full of curses, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, fortune-tellings, sorceries, robberies; false testimony, hypocrisy, duplicity, deception, arrogance, malice, stubbornness, greed, filthy-talking, jealousy, audacity, pride, boastfulness;

Barnabas 20:1 reads, "But the way of the black one is crooked and completely cursed. For it is a way of eternal death and punishment, in which lie things that destroy men's souls: idolatry, audacity, exaltation of power, hypocrisy..." followed by a list of sins very similar to those in the Didache, but not in the same sequence.

5:2 persecuting good men, hating truth, loving falsehood, not knowing the reward of righteousness, not adhering to what is good nor to righteous judgment; watching not for that which is good but for that which is evil; far from gentleness and patience, loving worthless things, pursuing recompense, having no mercy for the needy, not working for him that is distressed, not recognizing him who made them; murderers of children, corrupters of the image of God, turning away from him that is in need, oppressing him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, utterly sinful. May you be delivered, my children, from all these!

Barnabas 20:2 has this paragraph almost verbatim and in the same sequence, but it does not have the last sentence. The last sentence sounds like a spontaneous endorsement by the second teacher.

6:1 Take heed lest anyone lead you astray from this way of teaching, for he who does so teaches you away from God.

This sentence sums up the theme of Chapter I.

6:2 If you can carry the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect [full-grown, fully-mature]; but if you cannot, then do what you can.

"Be ye therefore perfect" is in Leviticus 19:2 and Matthew 5:48. The rest of this sentence is a point of departure: there is no such allowance for compromise in the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, his teachings are notably uncompromising.

6:3 Concerning food, bear what you can, but carefully keep away from food sacrificed to idols, for it is a worship-service to gods from the realm of the dead.

The prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols was one part of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49. The entire decision was sent as a letter to all the churches (Acts 15:20-29, 21:25), so why doesn't the Didache include all of it?

Chapter II -- On Piety

7:1 Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot baptize in cold water, then warm water; 3 but if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 4 Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.

The Trinity formula "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" appears only once in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19). It is probably a later insert (redaction) in both the Didache and Matthew's Gospel, because the Trinity was not defined until AD 362. The original reading was probably "In the name of the Lord" (see the Didache 9:5). Fasting before baptism dropped out of our tradition somewhere along the line.

8:1 Do not let your fasting be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second day and the fifth day of the week [Monday and Thursday], but you shall fast on the fourth day and the day of preparation [Wednesday and Friday].

The word "hypocrite" occurs 21 times in the New Testament. Mark uses it once. Luke uses it four times. In addition to parallels, Matthew uses it eleven times in passages that are found only in his gospel. All these are sayings of Jesus in which "hypocrite" refers to the most religious Jews of his day. Interestingly enough, this word is not found in Acts or any of the epistles.

8:2 Neither pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in his gospel: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for yours is the power and the glory, forever." 3 Pray this way three times a day.

Which Gospel is referred to here? The Lord's Prayer is not in Mark or John. It is worded this way in Matthew (6:9-13) but not in Luke (11:2-4).

9:1 And concerning the thanks-giving [Eucharist], give thanks thus: 2 first, concerning the cup: "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever."

Direct comparison of "your son David" and "your son Jesus" must be a very early doctrine, predating the doctrine that Jesus is the only son of God and the doctrine set forth by Athanasius in AD 318 that Jesus was God Incarnate. This is probably one reason why Athanasius excluded the Didache when he finalized the list of New Testament books in AD 367. Paul compared David and Jesus (Acts 13:16-41, Romans 5:15-17, I Timothy 2:5).

9:3 And concerning the broken bread: "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever. 4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ, forever." 5 But let no one eat or drink of your thanks-giving except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for the Lord has said, "Do not give that which is holy to the dogs."

There is nothing like this in the New Testament. Paul's instructions concerning the Lord's Supper do not include a model prayer (I Corinthians 11:20-34). "Give not that which is holy to the dogs" is in Matthew (7:6), but not in this context.

10:1 And after you are filled, give thanks thus: 2 "We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever. 3 You, Almighty Master, created all things for the sake of your name, and give men food and drink to enjoy, that they might give thanks to you, but to us you give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your son. 4 Above all, we give thanks that you are powerful; to you be the glory forever. 5 Remember your congregation, Lord, to redeem it from all evil and perfect it in your love; and gather it together, the one that has been sanctified, from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for it; for yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. 6 May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If anyone is holy let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen." 7 But let the prophets give thanks however they wish.

The phrase "the one (church) that has been sanctified" is probably a very clumsy redaction inserted some time after the Roman Emperor Theodosius declared the Nicene sect of Christianity the only sanctified Church in AD 380.

Paul prayed, "Yours be the glory forever." (Romans 11:36, 16:27, Galatians 1:5, Ephesians 3:20-21).

Paul used the Syrian expression maran-atha which means "Our Lord continues to come." It appears only once in the Bible (I Corinthians 16:22). Paul's home (Tarsus) was in the Syrian-speaking part of Cilicia. Thus, maran-atha may very well have been Paul's signature -- his personal testimony that Jesus continued to come to him after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Chapter III -- On Apostles and Prophets

11:1 Therefore, whoever comes and teaches you all these things aforesaid, receive him. 2 If the teacher himself is perverted and teaches a different doctrine to the subversion thereof, do not listen to him; but if he increases your righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as you would the Lord. 3 And concerning the apostles and prophets, do according to the command of the Gospel. 4 Let every apostle who comes to you be received as you would the Lord. 5 He will stay one day, and if necessary, a second day, but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. 6 Let the apostle when departing take nothing except bread until he arrives at his next lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

This clearly indicates that at least some of the apostles were still living when the Didache was written. It reflects what Jesus said when he told his apostles not to provide for themselves on their journeys (Matthew 10:10-11), and it suggests that supporting apostles could be a burden on the people with whom they stayed.

Matthew uses the word "apostle" once (10:2), Mark uses it once (6:30), and Luke uses it six times in his gospel, but none of these passages contain any command. Paul used the phrase "apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:4-6).

"Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord" is akin to something Jesus said: "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." (Matthew 10:40-41)

11:7 Do not tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaks in spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. 8 However, not every one who speaks in spirit is a prophet, but only he who has the disposition of the Lord; therefore, by their dispositions the false prophet and the prophet shall be known.

The unforgivable sin is to see the work of God and say, "That is the work of the Devil" (Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10). "By their fruits you shall know them" refers to discernment of true and false prophets in Matthew (7:15-20), but the parallel in Luke (6:43-45) refers to a good man rather than a prophet.

11:9 Any prophet who orders a meal in spirit shall not eat of it; if he does, he is a false prophet. 10 If any prophet who teaches the truth does not do what he teaches, he is a false prophet. 11 And any prophet, true and approved, who performs rites to a secret cosmic assembly, but does not teach others to perform what he performs, shall not be judged by you, for his judgment is with God; for likewise also did the prophets of old. 12 If anyone says in spirit, "Give me silver," or whatever else, do not listen to him; but if he tells you about others in need, that you should give to them, let no one condemn him.

There must have been a problem with false prophets who tried to get things for themselves. Several commentaries note that Didache 11:11 is difficult to interpret. The phrase "performs rites to a secret cosmic assembly" is my literal translation. It probably meant that the congregation should not be alarmed if they saw and heard a prophet conversing with invisible members of the Kingdom of God. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: "Let two or three prophets speak and the others weigh what is said" (I Corinthians 14:29-32).

12:1 Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord be received, and then examine him judiciously -- right and left -- for the opinions he holds. 2 If the one who comes is a traveler, assist him as much as you can, but he shall not stay with you more than two or three days, unless there is a necessity. 3 If he wishes to settle with you and is a craftsman, let him work for his living. 4 If he is not a craftsman, decide according to your own judgment how he shall live as a Christian among you, but not in idleness. 5 If he will not do this, he is one who makes gain from Christ. From such keep aloof.

Paul taught against living in idleness, in AD 50 or 51 (II Thessalonians 3:6-12).

The word "Christian" appears only three times in the Bible. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch of Syria about AD 43 (Acts 11:26); King Herod Agrippa II said to Paul, "In a short time you think to make me a Christian!" about AD 59 (Acts 26:28); and Simon Peter wrote, "If one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed..." no later than AD 64 or 65 (I Peter 4:16).

Chapter IV -- On Organization

13:1 Every true prophet who desires to settle among you is worthy of his food. 2 Likewise, a true teacher also is worthy, but like the craftsman, he works for his living. 3 Therefore, take the first-fruits of every product of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and sheep, and give it to the prophets, for they are your chief priests. 4 And if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. 5 If you make bread, take the first-fruits and give according to the commandment. 6 In like manner, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the first-fruits and give it to the prophets. 7 Yes, and of money and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruits, as seems good to you, and give according to the commandment.

There were "prophets and teachers" in the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3). Paul wrote, "God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues." (I Corinthians 12:28-31)

Paul and Barnabas earned their own living, but Peter did not -- and Paul did not preach what he practiced in that regard. On the contrary, he strongly maintained that the workman is worthy of his wage (I Corinthians 9:1-27). However, I find nothing in the New Testament about giving the first-fruits to the local prophets.

14:1 Gather together on the Lord's day, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 But do not let anyone who has a quarrel with a companion join with you until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be polluted; 3 for this was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles."

The Lord's Day was established as the first day of the week (Sunday) very early in the history of the church. "Reconcile before coming to the altar" is in Matthew 5:23-24. The quote on pure sacrifice is slightly paraphrased from Malachi 1:11.

15:1 Therefore, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, true and approved, for they also perform for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. 2 Therefore, do not despise them, for they are your honorable men, along with the prophets and teachers.

Paul used "bishop" as equivalent to "elder" (Philippians 1:1, I Timothy 3:1-18, Titus 1:5-14). In Greek, bishop means "overseer" and deacon means "servant".

"Elect for yourselves" is in stark contrast to the doctrine that bishops must only be consecrated by bishops, and the doctrine of "apostolic succession". The fact that it includes this democratic doctrine, later replaced by the hierarchy, was probably another reason why Athanasius excluded the Didache when he finalized the list of 27 New Testament books in AD 367.

15:3 And reprove one another, not in anger but peaceably, as you have it in the Gospel, and let no one speak to any one who wrongs his brother, neither listen to him, until he repents. 4 And your prayers and almsgiving and all your deeds, do as you find it in the Gospel of our Lord.

This is Jesus's procedure for reproving a brother (Matthew 18:15-17). When you give alms and when you pray: (Matthew 6:2-8). When you fast: (Matthew 6:16-17).

Chapter V -- On the Future

16:1 Be watchful for your life; do not let your lamps be quenched or your loins be ungirded, but be ready, for you do not know the hour in which our Lord comes. 2 Be often gathered together, seeking what is fit for your souls, for the whole time of your faith will not profit you if you are not perfect [full-grown, fully-mature] at the end of the season. 3 For in the last days false prophets and seducers will be multiplied, and the sheep will be turned into wolves, and love will be turned into hate. 4 For as lawlessness increases, they will hate and persecute and betray one another. And then the deceiver of the world will appear as a son of God, and he will do signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will do unlawful things such as never happened since the world began. 5 Then the creation of man will come to the fiery trial of testing, and many will stumble and perish, but those who endure in the faith will be saved alive from under the curse. 6 And then will appear the signs of the truth: first the sign of an opening in the heavens, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly a resurrection of the dead: 7 not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord will come and all his saints with him." 8 Then the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.

This abbreviated version of the apocalypse is the simplest and clearest I have ever seen, but it does not copy any other version of the apocalypse I can find. Also worth noting: nothing in the Didache indicates any awareness of the Jewish rebellion in AD 66 or the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Content Analysis

The Didache contains some material that is also in Matthew and Luke, rather a lot that is only in Matthew, and much that is not in any of the canonized gospels, but -- and this is remarkable -- it contains virtually nothing that is found in Mark.

How could that have happened? If the Didache was based on Matthew, as most New Testament scholars assume, how did the writer manage to exclude virtually everything that Matthew copied from Mark? And even if he had both of those gospels open in front of him, why would he want to do that?

A more likely hypothesis is:

Sayings of Jesus were probably in wide circulation in both oral and written form. The Didache refers to a collection of the sayings of Jesus known as "The Gospel of the Lord" but none of the four canonized gospels. Mark wrote his Gospel based on the preaching of Peter, as most New Testament scholars maintain. Matthew had the Didache and copied from it as he did from Mark: that would explain the origin of the passages that are only in the Didache and Matthew. Luke compiled his Gospel from several sources, including Mark, but he did not have the Didache.

Much of the material in the Didache is also in Acts and/or the Epistles of Paul. The style of these parts is typical of Paul.

The common source for parts of the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas is not very difficult to ascertain. If we were to compare two sermons by Billy Graham, one given in the 1950s and the other in the 1990s, many phrases and even whole sentences would be virtually identical, but not in the same sequence -- which is precisely what we find in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. Therefore, the most probable source is Barnabas himself, early and late in his career.

The Didache shows several abrupt changes in vocabulary, phrasing, and ways of addressing an audience that capture the "voices" of three different speakers. In sum, it reads like a set of lecture notes taken by someone listening to three people.

Historical Context

Many strong parallels point to Paul and Barnabas as the apostles involved in this teaching. If so, what we know about them from other sources brackets the time and place in which the Didache was written.

The followers of Jesus first preached the gospel only to Jews. After several years, some of them started preaching to Gentiles in Antioch of Syria, many of whom were converted. When the leaders of the church in Jerusalem heard about this, they sent Barnabas to Antioch. He found a sizable congregation and many more people eager to hear about Jesus. So Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Paul to Antioch. They taught there together for a year. (Acts 11:19-26)

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world, and this took place in the days of Claudius. And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Paul. (Acts 11:27-30)

Historical sources say there was a great famine in Judea in AD 47. Therefore, Acts 12:1-23 may be misplaced in Luke's otherwise chronological report. "About that time" King Herod killed James the brother of John and arrested Peter; but Peter escaped from prison, and King Herod died at Caesarea. There are historical records that King Herod (Agrippa I) died during a festival at Caesarea in AD 44. Luke adds a time-space: "But the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24).

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul wrote:

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. (Galatians 2:1-2)

Fourteen years after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem probably equates to AD 47. The Didache may be what Paul laid before the leaders in Jerusalem -- a summary document prepared in advance for just that purpose -- or more likely from the way it sounds, a set of lecture notes taken while Barnabas and Paul and Titus were speaking. In either case it is worth noting that in the Didache and in Acts 15:12 Barnabas speaks first. He was the leader at Antioch. Paul was his assistant.

when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:9)

This was when Barnabas and Paul received their charter as "The Apostles to the Gentiles." They returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, bringing Mark with them. (Acts 12:25) Shortly thereafter, all three of them set out on Paul's first missionary journey, which scholars date in AD 47. (Acts 13:1-4)

They went from Antioch to and through the island of Cyprus, and then north to what is now the southern coast of Turkey. There Mark left them and went back to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas went on establishing new churches in the Roman province of Galatia. They returned to the coast by the way they came, sailed back to Antioch of Syria, and "remained no little time with the disciples." (Acts 13 - 14)

But some men came down from Jerusalem [to Antioch] and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1)

Paul's letter to the Galatians was probably written at this time. No doubt, men from Jerusalem also told his converts in Galatia that they had to be circumcised. Paul was angry because the leaders in Jerusalem had broken their agreement by sending men to the Gentiles. Thus, his letter to the Galatians was written in late AD 48 or early AD 49.

Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go [from Antioch] up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. (Acts 15:2b)

Scholars date the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem in AD 49. The controversy was not between Paul and Peter. After all, Peter was the one who first preached the gospel to Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3). It was between Paul and "the circumcision party" led by James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 2:12).

Peter spoke first, in favor of preaching the gospel to Gentiles. Then Barnabas and Paul presented their case. Finally, James of Jerusalem yielded. The decision was that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to be Christians, but they must: "Abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts 15:6-21, 29) The first part of this decision is in the Didache (6:3); the other three provisions apparently were added to it by the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem.

With their charter thus reaffirmed, Paul and Barnabas were ready to carry the decision of the Apostolic Council back to the churches they established. Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them again, but Paul objected because Mark left them during their previous journey. Paul and Barnabas quarreled. Finally, Barnabas took Mark with him and went back to Cyprus (Acts 15:36-39). This is the last we hear of Barnabas in the New Testament, except for an indication that he was still preaching the gospel several years later (I Corinthians 9:6).

The long title of the Didache in the manuscript dated 1056 reads: "The Teaching of the Lord by the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles" but I believe the original title was "The Teaching of the Apostles to the Gentiles" and the rest was inserted later.

Certainly Barnabas and Paul were "The Apostles to the Gentiles." If the Didache is a sample of their teaching, as it certainly seems to be, then it must be dated no later than AD 49 because that was when they went their separate ways. The most probable date is either AD 44 or AD 47. In either case, those dates are earlier than anything in the New Testament. Therefore, I believe the Didache is the earliest Christian document we have. Although rightly regarded as a church handbook and not a Gospel or absolutely based on the teachings of Jesus, it provides valuable insights concerning the moral doctrines, theology, rituals, esoteric operations and congregational testing of apostles and prophets, and the basic organization of First Century Christianity.

Home | Testimony

What you posted is nice the insertion of scriptural referances was done by someone else and is not included in the text -- the history after the document also opinion of someone and has been inseted with the document.

What you need to know is that for the first tree centuries of church history there is one and only one historian that all scholars have to quote from -- there are other things concerning sources of early church history that I won't go through right here. I have have the source works -- all of the stuff that is laid out as fact in your doc as to the writing of the didache and its origin does not exist in the ancient christian writings.

There are no records of its origin there are no records of its dissemination or that any of the twelve apostles participated in writing it -- we can see an entire lengthy passage that is in the episel of barnabas but that does not mean that he wrote the didache -- it means it contains some of his writings.

Matthew had the Didache and copied from it as he did from Mark: that would explain the origin of the passages that are only in the Didache and Matthew. Luke compiled his Gospel from several sources, including Mark, but he did not have the Didache.

This statement is completely made up

Much of the material in the Didache is also in Acts and/or the Epistles of Paul. The style of these parts is typical of Paul. This is also opinion -- What verses in acts does he cite? Style of paul does not equal written by paul

Fourteen years after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem probably equates to AD 47. The Didache may be what Paul laid before the leaders in Jerusalem

You see the best the author can say is MAY BE not IS -- the documents's origin is unknown the author or authors are unknown -- what we are lloking at is modern christian divination as to a document written some 1800 years ago --

Cults are started by people authenticating things that are of unknown origin -- As beleviers we need to do better than that. As a preacher if we offer documents to teach the church dummied up or under false circumstances -- that is an offense that would get one wiped from the lambs book of life -- this isn't some game where one man's word is against another -- and I will add that there are coptic and eastern chruch copies of the didache that have been found in monistaries also.

"but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet."

This is why I don't go to church but go to Bible study in private homes.

I've skimmed this thread...and I'm not sure i understand your bottom line regarding the Didache. Do you respect it? Do you think it is in alignment with the NT...or do you see it differing in significant ways?

The didache was part of the earliest canons and was quoted from by early church leaders -- it was discontinued in use in the western church (Catholic) but it was continued to be used by the eastern church.

If it was read by the apostoliic fathers, and recognised as profitable to early beleivers of the first and second century -- we should read it and consider its words.

it is similar to the constitution -- inorder to better undrestand what was written in it we go to the writings of those who wrote it or the writing of those who knew the writers best and in so doing we can get a better grasp of the constitution. The didache is one such writing -- there are a few other early writings as well that were once accepted but were put aside centuries later. Particularly The Epistle of Barnabas Philo on the early church(70-90 AD) Eusubius Ecclesiastical history (4th century)his history of christ and the apostles.

There are other writings as well in the second and third century that can give us a sharper sense of terms and doctrines that were held but are not fully described in the new testament, Justin Martyr (160 AD) his defense of Christianity to trypho. Origen's (230 AD) commentary on John book 1

These people knew a lot more about the gospel and the function of beleivers than we do.

We are having trmendous problems with the constitution just 250 years since it was written -- the problem is not that the words have changed but that there are a group of people that have redefined words and terms in the constituion to make them mean something other than what has been understood for the last 200 years. Judging thing by what we now see in say 500 or a thousand years how will people view the constitution and it's then obscure words and references. So it is with the bible and NT if you feel we have all truth and knowledge and that we know the NT like the apostle Paul -- than why don't we have the power and demonstration of Paul and the church he describes. Between paul and us have been 1900 years of interpretation and redefining of terms to suit generation after generation that they have indeed all there is to have. Yet somehow our experiacne does not quite line up. The value of reading these things is that we can get a perspective much closer to the mark of deviation.

If we love the truth we have to read pray and conpare these things to scripture and hopefully the Spirit of God will lead is into a more vital experiacne with God. Where as scripture says: Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Isaiah 58:12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.

I think the prophets were prophesying not only about israel and christ but the church. I think we have lost our way. I'll write more later gotta go.

What do you make of the Eucharist in the Didache vs. the Eucharist in the NT? There is quite a difference.

I think that we (protestants) are not practicing the eucharist of the new testament.

Rather than making blanket statements let me describe what I have found in scripture this past year these are some of the comments i have written on the subject -- I apologise for the length.

1 Corinthians 10:16-18 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Even as I am writing this, I am seeing a newer and greater depth to this passage than I saw just two or three days previously. This morning I see for the first time that there are two separate acts of communion within what we call Holy Communion. There is the communion of the Blood of Christ, and there is also the communion of the Body of Christ. And I see that Holy Communion is the co-mingling of these two communions of Christ. This is like the co-mingling of the word and the Spirit that in turn brings forth the co-mingled light and life of Christ into our darkened hearts and darkened spirits.

So Paul says that we are all to be partakers of the blood of Christ, and partakers of the body of Christ. Well, you might say this is pretty thin brother. You only have a single verse for this newest concept of yours. Do I?

1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Without studying out that matter, I already have a second solid verse. The phrase “Guilty of the body and guilty of the blood.” This appears bolster the assertion that Christ has made two separate communion experiences for us as believers and the two have been made them as one. Like marriage -- the two shall become one flesh, like us and Christ in us -- the two shall become one flesh. So rather than arguing the validity of this thought right now, we are going to look instead at Paul’s main assertion in what I call the mystery verse of 1 Corinthians 10:16-18.

1 Corinthians 10:16-18 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

The first thing that we need to clearly grasp is that the context of these three verses are clearly on Holy Communion. As is Chapter 10 and 11 of 1 Corinthians

Once we have that clearly established in our minds we can move onto what Paul in these verses is clearly saying is the scripture derivation of at least the breaking of the bread – Christ’s flesh that he gave as the Communion for the Body of Christ to partake. – Paul says it came from Old Testament passages of scripture regarding Israel eating of the sacrifices of the altar.

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they, which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Surely Paul a Pharisee of Pharisees would have understood the significance of the blood covenant that God made with Abraham. And yet Paul does not link the blood covenant of Abraham with the communion of the Body of Christ. And we can also safely say based on the context of the passage above that Paul does not link the Communion of the Blood of Christ with the Blood covenant either. Some disciples of the blood covenant will vehemently disagree saying Communion is called the New Covenant therefore this is clearly all blood Covenant. We will examine that assertion and others as we seek out the sacrifices that Paul says Israel ate and was made partakers of the Altar.

There were reasons that Paul did not make this link. For your consideration, in the making of a covenant you did not eat the sacrifice, and in making a covenant you did not put the blood on you, or drink blood.

Recently in a local Church meeting here in Alaska, an Evangelist gave the most masterful communion message I had ever heard. It was in regards to the seven steps of Old Testament covenants. The Evangelist went into great detail on how the people who wanted to make a covenant. How they sacrificed an animal or group of animals, how they had to lay out the animal parts and animal blood in a certain way on the ground. How they would take off their robes and exchanged swords as part of the ceremony, and how they did various other things to seal that covenant. But you see God is not a man, and God didn’t strip down or hand his sword to anyone. The truth of the covenant with Abraham is that God covenanted with himself on the behalf of Abraham.

And as to pertaining to covenants Paul said that God when he made his Covenant with Abraham, that God could swear by none greater than himself.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Even though Abraham was called the friend of God, God did not find in Abraham one that was worthy to stand with him and make the covenant. So God did it by himself.

And likewise when Christ was on earth, He found none worthy to covenant with. Not Peter, not James, not even John the beloved of the Lord. So Christ could swear by none greater than himself, So Christ did his act on the cross and in the resurrection alone. The truth of the New Covenant is that Christ covenanted with himself on the behalf of us.

So that the truths in the Old Testament regarding the making of covenants as wonderful as they may be, fall woefully short of what God wants to communicate with us in regards to what Jesus did in His death on the cross, in His burial and in His resurrection. And therefore the teachings regarding blood covenants that some teach today also fall short of what His purpose is for having us partake of the Communion of the Body of Christ and the Communion of the Blood of Christ.

Let us now examine now the main passage Fundamentalists and Pentecostals use when partaking of Holy Communion.

I Corinthians 11:23-26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

In the Word of God Holy Communion is to be performed with a loaf of bread. I might note here that our modern purists have read in the Gospels that the last supper happened during the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread – so to honor this notion that we are to only eat unleavened bread in communion, they offer us cracker crumbs.

Contrary to that notion Paul said we are one-bread – not one unleavened loaf and most assuredly Paul did not say we are all one unleavened cracker.

And so after blessing the bread Jesus broke it and said it is my body. I think it is very significant that the loaf was divided, and that only when all the disciples participated together did they comprise the whole loaf.

In the Gospels and Epistles the term bread and breaking bread is used some 16 times and not once are we told that that bread was to be unleavened bread –If this would have been of issue among the gentile believers – Paul would have said use unleavened bread to honor Christ the Passover lamb. So we are to use common bread because God wants us to consider the loaf. So when we look the doctrine of man’s pan of cracker crumbs what do we see only – the broken fragmentation of the body of Christ that none can put together. Points to ponder.

We will now move on to the cup. We know that Jesus took the cup – Jesus blessed it – Jesus then called the Cup the New Testament – Jesus said it was his blood – and finally Jesus said drink all of it.

Matthew 26:26-28 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. We see in Matthew that Christ says this is the blood of the New Covenant – for the remission of sins. How can the cup be for the remission of sins when we are told that all our sins upon salvation have passed into the sea of God’s forgetfulness? Likewise if we prayed for forgiveness before communion as Paul seems to indicate as a wise course of action and God forgave us then what then is the purpose of this cup?

Mark 14:22-24 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and break it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. This may come as a shock but Holy Communion is not the Christian celebration of the Jewish Passover. There were several reasons Christ had the disciples partake of communion on that night. There was an aspect of Jesus being the sacrifice lamb – but His being the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world, must be understood to be different than the Passover lamb. God in Holy Communion is trying to convey to us a far greater truth than Passover, which we will get shortly.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Of the cup I would like you to see several things. First off Jesus said that the cup is the New Testament or the New Covenant, not the four Gospels the Book of Acts, the Epistles and the book of Revelation. The idea that the cup is the New Testament or the New Covenant may sound very foreign to you, but those are the words of Jesus. And I would think that He would be an authority on what the New Testament or New Covenant was or wasn’t.

So how did half the Bible end up being called the New Testament and the other half the Old Testament? Well, about three hundred years after the death of Christ, after the Church had utterly backslid. After the Church had lost of all the gifts of the Spirit, and had no idea how to return to the Gospel that was once delivered unto the Saints, a group of carnal Church leaders got together and assembled what we call the Cannon of Scripture or the Bible. While they worked out which books they would accept or reject they arbitrarily decided that they would call the Law and the Prophets the Old Testament, and that they would call the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation the New Testament. Neither name is true. And both names have been the source of untold error over the last 1700 years.

In Jesus day the Old Testament was called the Law and the Prophets. The Law contained the five books of Mosses. The five Books of contained Genesis and the Book of Genesis contained the Covenant of Abraham. The Jews never called Genesis, or the five books of Mosses or for that fact the Prophets the book or books of the Covenant. Nowhere in the Prophets or Mosses were any of these books called that.

Jesus never called Mosses and the Prophets them the Old Testament, nor did the Apostles. Why am I making such a big deal about this? Because there is a lot of false doctrine and traditions of men based on the concept of the New and Old Testament.

In the New Testament (I use only this term so you can follow what I am saying) They have a term that is used “Scripture” the term scripture always refers to a quotation from the Old Testament. Everything in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament. There is a mistaken and false belief that Christ just made up anything he felt like saying when he spoke in the Gospels – There is a mistaken and false belief that when Paul the Apostle was caught up to the third heaven, that he was given license from God to create an entire New Testament Order on his own – People believe that essentially Paul is the author of the New Covenant, and that these writings of Paul replaced the Old Testament. This is utterly false. Everything out of Paul’s mouth was based on scripture from the Old Testament. Paul refers to his writings repeatedly as milk for babes, Paul constantly refers to his readers as unskillful, babes, unlearned, and needing the first principals once again. Paul speaks of he has meat he wants to teach but he can’t. Where are the chapters that Paul says now here is the meat? Where are the Chapters that Paul says and now I speak to the mature? There is none. Shock of Shocks! You mean that the New Testament is food for babes? Paul seems to indicate this? Well where then is the food for the mature? Where’s the real meat?

1 Corinthians 2 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

What does all this mean? It means that all the wisdom of God is hidden and has to be spiritually discerned. It means Christ spoke in parables and proverbs that:

Isaiah 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Isaiah 42:19-20 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.

Isaiah 29:9-11 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

John 16:25 –29 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. God keeps his truth hid to protect it. He doesn’t want it tampered with, so he kept some things even hidden from his 12 disciples by speaking to them in parables and proverbs – So where is this vast repository of God’s hidden wisdom? It is located in what we call wrongly call the Old Testament.

So what then is what we call the New Testament? It is a guidebook on rightly dividing the word of truth and it is a primer that includes the spiritual addresses and phone numbers of many truths located in the Old Testament. So in the New Testament the writings of the Law and Prophets are always called scripture and Paul tells us all scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Another strong consideration is that Peter preaches Peter, John preaches John and Paul preaches Paul. John does not preach Peter and John doesn’t preach Paul. And we preach every book and tape we listen too. Could it be that they knew something that we don’t?

Yes they did. John and the Apostles had a law of the Spirit that they rigidly followed. And that law was “That which our eyes have seen that which our hands have handled concerning the word of life that speak we unto you.” They preached their experience not someone else’s. The Gospel that Christ preached was to be a first hand experience or nothing. For 1800 years people have had little or no first hand experience. These empty vessels, and empty ministries want to hide their nakedness for you and I, so they hide behind other people’s experiences, these hide behind other peoples revelation, these hide behind other people teachings, and then these go out in their own name and most believers are so blind and dull of hearing that they never realize that these have actually gone out in someone else’s name, many someone else’s names. We of a truth have been generation upon generation of spiritual hitchhikers.

I Corinthians 11:27-31 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

In a quick recap. So far we have established that Paul having been caught up to the third heaven and having been taught personally by Christ, knowingly bypassed comparing Communion to the Passover, and likewise Paul knowingly bypassed linking Holy Communion with Blood Covenant’s spoken of in the Law and Prophets. Instead we find Paul linking Communion with the Jews and Christians being called to be a kingdom of Priests in Exodus 19.

We have established that as true Priests unto God that we have to be wholly separated unto God from the teachings and traditions of man. That as true priests we are to bear on our shoulders the entire body of Christ as opposed to some Church, denomination, or schism, and are to have the entire body of Christ on out hearts as in the first and great commandment.

Paul and the Apostles speak of the bread as a loaf of bread on an unleavened cracker –they were given real portions as opposed to crumbs and given a real cup filled with the fruit of the vine as opposed to a tiny sip.

By this point I had a good idea of what I was looking for in the Law of Mosses but I did still did not have an exact sacrifice identified for me by Paul. So through the leading of the Spirit I found myself in the narrative that begins in Exodus 19 and ends in Exodus 34.

Backing up for a second I had at first considered the Passover sacrifice and I carefully read over what was originally described in Exodus 12. The need for a lamb without spot or blemish – the Israelites all ate of it – the blood was put on the doorposts – that the Angel passed over their dwellings. Again like the truths of blood covenants, the Passover sacrifice would seem to be the obvious choice of Paul. But it wasn’t.

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they, which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

See when we look at the mystery verse and compare it to Passover there is an altar problem – in Passover no one was eating from the altar. So again as many wonderful truths that there was in Passover this has little to do what God is trying to communicate with us about Holy Communion. And what adds to the confusion is in one of the Gospels it says that while they were celebrating Passover in an upper room after the meal Jesus took bread . . .

So lets look at a few sacrifices to help us see what this is all about. In Exodus 29:10-14 They Aaron and his sons lay their hands on the head of the first Bullock and impart their sin into it – (In the Law one could only impart sin when they laid hands on something.) Eyeball to eyeball they then killed the Bullock that bore their sin before the Lord by the Door of tabernacle of the Congregation. They then applied the blood to the horns of the altar with their finger – God said: “It is the Sin Offering.”

This was not a match either.

The next passage Still in Exodus 29:15 – 18 (The ram of the burnt offering) Thou shalt take a ram . . . Aaron and his sons again lay their hands on the head of the ram and impart their sin and iniquity. (I thought the sin offering took it all away – no it didn’t) Aaron and his sons then slay the ram and sprinkle the blood around about the altar (They are concecrating or cleansing the altar) And then they burn the whole ram as a burnt offering unto the Lord which is a sweet savor an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

So this one is not a match either.

The next passage Still in Exodus 29:19 - 46 Then thou shalt take the other ram (The Ram of consecration) – and Aaron and his son’s shall put their hands upon its head (they are still imparting more iniquity and sin) – and thou shalt kill it and take the blood and put it upon the tip of the right ear, put it upon the tip of the right thumb, and put it upon the right great toe. – And them sprinkle the blood on the altar and round about. And thou shalt take the the blood that is upon the Altar and the Holy anointing oil and sprinkle it upon Aaron and his garments and upon his sons –and he shall be hallowed, his garments his sons and their garments.

We can see the blood in action in this passage. Upon the tip of the right ear that all that we hear may be from the Lord. Upon the great right toe that our walk may be continually before the Lord. Upon the right thumb that all the works of our hand may be of the Lord. The blood of the Old Covenant could only be applied on the outward parts.

Paul says that the Old Covenant was week through the flesh but the New Covenant through Christ we were given the blood to drink so that that it might go into our inward parts circumcise our hearts and renew our minds. This is why this is a better covenant because the blood is applied to the root of the problem in us.

In verse 31 they are instructed that they are to eat of the flesh of the ram of consecration and the bread that is in the basket. Verse 33 And they shall eat those things where with the atonement was made to consecrate and sanctify them – a stranger can not partake because the meat and bread are Holy they are to eat all and any that remains is to be burnt.

So back to the communion of the body of Christ – it is to sanctify and consecrate us. See When we become believers we are told that Christ died for the sins of the world and that is absolute undeniable truth, but when we take the communion of the body of Christ that changes. This becomes most holy unto God as we lay our priestly hands on Christ head eyeball to eyeball and impart our sin into him. Christ has to be transformed from the savior of the world to my personal savior. We then have to look into the innocent eyes that knew no sin. He then nods for us to continue. We then have to slay him ourselves. Christ died for me. We as it were have to drive the nail in him ourselves on the cross. He bleeds and dies in our hands. We are then instructed to partake of the communion of the Ram of Consecration. In so doing two things happen first we become one with the sacrifice I in He. Secondly we receive nourishment or life from the sacrifice to perform out priestly duties He in I. By extension the ram now walks in us as we do our duties

Verse 35 Seven days shalt thou consecrate Aaron and his sons. Every day shalt thou offer a bullock for a sin offering for an atonement and thou shalt cleanse to alter when thou has made an atonement for it (The altar) and thou shalt anoint it (the altar) and sanctify it (the altar.) Communion in the New Testament was not to be a one time experience either. It took a lot to sanctify Aaron his sons and the Altar. How much more will it take to cleanse the polluted and profane people and Church of our day?

And then their was another passage of scripture about the priest preparing themselves for the day of atonement and the High Priest preparing himself to enter the Holy of Holies and they also partook of the offering after they imparted their sin in it, and slew it.

At the moment Christ was offering his disciples to partake of his flesh and his blood the priests were laying their hands on the sacrifice and imparting their sin into the innocent creature. In the Old Covenant a Priest with the laying on of hands could only impart sin and death – In the New Covenant we can impart life and health.

They then personally slew the animal and drained its blood and then put the carcass on the Altar and made a burnt offering of it unto the Lord. The priests were then to partake of the offering this signified two things 1) By eating of it they made the offering part of themselves and thereby letting the sacrifice live on in them 2) They received life and nourishment to be able to perform their priestly duties.

When we partake of the bread – the body of Christ 1) We are imparting unto him all our sin and iniquity. 2) In taking communion Christ’s death for the sins of the world is forever changed in our hearts. It becomes much more personal. We are not only imparting our personal sin into him but we as the priests must slay him as well. We literally drive the nails in him ourselves. This is done so that Jesus is becomes our personal sin offering. Unless we can move from Jesus general salivation for the sins of the world to becoming our personal savior we can never receive the power of the resurrection that is also in him. As I impart my sin into him I am looking directly into his innocent eyes and I’m looking into those same eyes as I slay him. 3) The next step is partaking of the offering of his flesh. Far from being reviled by what is going on Christ now demands that we partake of his flesh so that by extension we become part of the sacrifice and he also can live on in us. And that by doing this we also receive special nourishment to enable us to perform our priestly duties.

This partaking is most Holy unto the Lord. I see by the Spirit that this experience is equivalent to when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. And if their was anything unholy unto the Lord he would be struck dead and the atonement for Israel was lost for that year. Therefore Paul exhorts us when we partake that we should examine ourselves, we are to be wholly cleansed, and wholly consecrate ourselves to receive the full effects. Communion is to be a life altering experience; in it we are to receive direct impartation of the life of Christ on an unparalleled level. I believe communion is even more powerful than the impartation of the laying on of hands. The power here is unfiltered and direct from the throne.

John 6:32-40 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hosea 2:19-23 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. and it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. (God Will Sow) And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. Hosea begins with God telling the Prophet to marry a whore. Scripture indicates that this woman was not some broken down hooker eking out an existence on the low side of town, she apparently was well known and had a cadre of wealthy lovers that lavished her with expensive gifts. Hosea apparently had a great capacity of love and took in this woman with seemingly little care for him. For as not too far into this marriage just as Israel had and the future early church did she went back to her lovers and fulfilled her lust of the flesh, her lust of the eyes and her love for the things of the world. Hosea like God was longsuffering and in time circumstances were created that this woman could no longer cavort with her lovers and she ended up in bondage or some kind of jail that Hosea redeemed her from buying her with silver. So we now come to this passage and God speaks about his marriage to the Church the unfaithful whore that has been for the last 1800 years taken with her wealthy lovers while fulfilling her every lust and desire. God says he will wed her in Righteousness -- that speaks to us no just of Her apologizing or repenting, but righteousness indicates she has been changed by an experience of sanctification. This bride shall also be wed in Judgment -- that would indicate that the Church has regained the capacity to discern between good and evil, sweet and bitter, holy and unholy. This bride shall also be wed in Loving Kindness – this speaks of the restoration of the Agape Love as spoken of in first and great commandment. And finally the Church will be wed in Mercy -- which speaks to us of the outpouring of mercy that we are to have to our neighbors, as cited in the second great commandment. So we have the image of a whore that has been so transformed within that she has become a bride worthy of the Lord.

And it shall come to pass that in that day shall I hear, God will hear the heavens (Rejoice) The heavens shall hear the earth (Rejoice) And the earth shall hear the Corn the Wine and the Oil (rejoice) The Communion of Body of Christ, The Communion of the Blood of Christ, and the Communion of the Holy Spirit , and the Corn, Wine and Oil will hear Jezreel --God shall sow (Rejoice), and I will sow her unto me in the earth (His bride) and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. This passage would indicate that Holy Communion is of far greater importance to the bride than we would have ever realized.

Hosea 9:1-3 Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor. The floor and the winepress shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail in her. They shall not dwell in the LORD's land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria. God is saying here that the Church should not rejoice or celebrate sin and the flesh as the world does – while you have gone astray. Not too many years ago Spirit-filled Christians used to spend a lot of time seeking God fasting and praying. – A few decades later this gave way to feasting the church had become a social organization and function where Christians gathered instead of their worldly counterparts. And now just a few more decades later we celebrate everything of the world and of the flesh. The thought now is that we can have good clean fun better than the world and thus bring them in. God says that the threshing floor (Bread) the wine press (The Cup) and the new wine (in Lamsa’s translation is says the Oil shall fail) God is going to pull the plug on communion and the anointing. If Holy Communion was the only sacrament of direct impartation of the very life of God to believers, when the early Church fell away – what do you suppose that the effect would have been when God pulled the plug on Holy Communion? Likewise with the oil or the anointing what do you suppose the effect was on the early church when God removed the gifts of the Spirit and the ministry of the Apostle and the Prophet? Even when God did this to get their attention and stop them in their tracks their was no repentance, their was no cry raised, they kept on going where were they headed this scripture says to Egypt – the world and Assyria – Babylonian doctrines and traditions.

Isaiah 1:13-15 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. God is crying out against vain offerings; tithes, sacrifices, worship, and prayer. How can the offerings we give to God ever be bad? These offerings are tainted with the taint of the world and the flesh. What was it about Cain’s offering that was unacceptable, and what was it that made Able’s offering acceptable? Notice in this passage that Cain fell into sin over his offering to God. The answer is Able gave unto the Lord and Cain gave of himself something of his life and reputation was in that offering. These people were given to meetings gatherings and feasts as are the Churches of our day. To which the Lord says I cannot accept these, he can not in dwell these, all these are tainted with iniquity even the solemn meetings. He says your special meetings and feasts I hate – those are a celebration of your flesh, of the things of man and the things of the world -- these I hate. Why do these evoke such strong feelings from God? Because they teach children and the young in spirit that carnality is righteousness, they teach sow seeds of unrighteousness into God’s little ones which grow and defile them. God is fed up he has all he can stand of this. When ye lift up your hands pray and worship I will hide my eyes from you . Yea when you make many prayers I will not hear. Then God charges them saying their hands are full of blood. Is God accusing these people of being murderers? I don’t think so I believe God is referring to the blood of the sacrifices. Back in Genesis when Cain slew Able over his offering being accepted by God, God said to Cain “Able’s blood from out of the ground crieth out to me the same blood that cleanseth, the same blood that cries out in our behalf forgive, forgive them please -- can cry out against us and God hears the cry of the blood. In their willfully defiled state the blood of their sacrifices crieth against them or was a testimony against them.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, If in the Old Covenant a people could come to the state listed above in Isaiah 1:13-15 So that the very blood of their sacrifices for sin became a testimony against them. -- These people had become toast -- because there was no more atonement for sin for them. And so in the book of Hebrews this very subject is spoken of in regards to the bearers of this new and better Covenant

Hosea 9:4 They shall not offer wine offerings to the LORD, neither shall they be pleasing unto him: their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the LORD. We keep seeing in Hosea God talking about the bread and the wine. In the Law of Mosses there was something called the drink offering where some wine was poured on the altar but the priest did not partake, there were several important offerings to God in the book of the Law but the bread was not a significant part of any of the sacrifices. So why does the prophet keep talking about bread and wine or bread whine and oil – I think that we can make a strong case that the prophet was seeing into the church age, Holy Communion its removal and its final restoration. What is the bread of mourners? Bread of anguish – or what Pail describes in 1 Corinthians 11 as having killed, making people sick and making people weak, instead of being the bread of life it has become the bread of death. And God says all that eat of this bread shall be polluted. God has turned his back on Holy Communion with this people, the covenant has been nullified.

Can God rescind a covenant? Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, even beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

Hosea 14:6-7 His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon. They that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine: the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon. This verse is talking about a people that dwell under the shadow of the Lord. -- In Psalm 91:1 David calls this the secret place of the Most High. And he says: “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. This passage goes on the say that those who abide under the shadow of the almighty will revive as the corn and grow as the vine and the scent of these people will be as of the wine of Lebanon. John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. I think that this verse is not just talking about a restoration of the infusion of the very life of Christ through Holy Communion, this verse points to a people that have been revived in newness of life that have become that bread and have become that wine. These are walking in the fullness of Christ or we might say Christ is living and moving in them.

Joel 1:9-10 The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off from the house of the LORD; the priests, the LORD's ministers, mourn. The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth. Again in Joel we see the bread and the wine – Holy Communion being cut off and then Just like in Hosea God says He’s cutting off the Bread , the Wine and the Oil. It should seem striking that in neither books does God speak of sin offerings, burnt offerings or the state of the flocks or herds. The concern is with the corn the wine and the oil

11 Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen; howl, O ye vinedressers, for the wheat and for the barley; because the harvest of the field is perished. 12 The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men. 13 Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God. 14 Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD, 15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come. 16 Is not the meat cut off before our eyes, yea, joy and gladness from the house of our God? 17 The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered.

If we follow the thought here that God is shutting down Holy Communion and all the spiritual operations of the Church this is a very powerful passage of scripture. And this passage may indeed be able shed some light on some of the unscriptural things that we see in the Church today and some things in scripture that we do not see in this day and hour.

Joel 2:15-19 Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people. Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen:

This passage again clearly speaks pf a restoration of Holy Communion. Note that the steps to the restoration are a cleansing or a coming into sanctification as we discussed earlier.

You've quoted the New Testament regarding the eucharist. Have you noticed that what is in the Didache (regarding the eucharist) differs from what is in the New Testament? (Sorry if I might have missed any commentary on that.) I find that, at least, noteworthy...especially in light of how the Jews would have felt about consuming blood.

Could you be more specific as to the passage you are asking about. Quoting it would help. -- I read through the "chapter" on the eucharist and what I see mostly in the Didache on the Eucharist are the prayers with only a few comments.

I will give a lengthy quote from Justin Martyr from about 150 AD this is from his defense of Christianity to Ceasar

They partake the Eucharist at every meeting

And this food is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.(6) For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAP. LXVII.--WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,(1) all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,(2) and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given,(3) and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

The eucharist in the Didache (see chapters 9 and 10) never mentions either the body or the blood of Christ. Jesus is referred to as God's "servant". The emphasis is on the gathering of the church body. Quite a shift in focus when compared to the current eucharist celebration.

THE DIDACHE (The Teaching)