RE: " These don't belive in salvation by the blood of Christ they don't beleive in the virgin birth they don't beleive in Christ was without sin -- they say christ was a good teacher and a good man that teaches poeple how to be good. "
Your description also applies to many good, intelligent, Godly people....religious Jews to name a few.
RE: " And there are dozens of commentaries by these people -- there ar not written to teach truth but to express a complete viewpoint on scripture to a specific bent ..."
No different than the political machinations behind the Nicene Creed of 325AD.
RE: Why is communion the same in all these churches that consider each other in the least deceived and in headed discussions heretics?
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're asking...but from what i THINK you're trying to express...I'd guess it's that all those denominations are just offshoots of the original church that started the practice. Yes, they all have minor differences...but the basics are all the same. It's all in the creed.
RE:"But sadly most people when they look at this stuff the first reponse is that it is different so its off."
I have no problem with you posting from the Didache. I think it's interesting. If you think i was criticizing it as being "off"...that was not my intent, and I apologize. My point was that the eucharist celebration in the Didache seems very different than what is in the NT...and what the church stresses today. Again, there is NO mention of Jesus' body and blood in the Didache. He is referred to as "God's SERVANT"...with no mention of him being God in the flesh. This differs greatly from what most contemporary Christians stress when reading the NT. The Didache, a very early work, focusses on the kinds of things Jesus' preached. It does not focus on the doctrinal issues of the Nicene Creed or the Constantinian Christian Church.
RE:"-- your commentary says things about the didache that you can't find when you read it. "
No, that is not what the commentary says about the Didache. My commentary was that the Didache eucharist is NOT like the eucharist in the New Testament. There is NO drinking of Jesus' blood. The bread is not his body. The comments Tertullian made referred to the eucharist as described in the New Testament...not the Didache. Again, there is no drinking of blood in the Didache....so nothing for Tertullian to discuss there.
I am not criticizing the Didache. That it does not portray the eucharist in the same way Paul does, is not a negative, in my opinion.
I feel like we're going off on all kinds of tangents here. Again, my original point was to note that the Didache eucharist celebration differs from the New Testament eucharist celebration. Unlike what's in the NT, Jesus' "body and blood" are not mentioned. That's all.
Your comentary was refering to the comentary you and quoted from. And you had another post that was a had a quote from tertullian.
The huge thing about commentaries was me trying to be helpful. Sin I don't know you I was guessing that you regularly used them -- I did about 25 years ago. I would sit 4-5 side by side and I became disturbed by the sharp disagreements between them on simple texts.
At the time I had though they would have all contained the same things just differect levels of depth and expertise.
I see that all that was unescessary
Anyway if we step back a few posts I want to look again at the prayers offered and try to tie them in with scripture a little