Well, Woodrow, what I'll let you in on is no secret, but the Didache is something that Christians have known about for years. And though it was once considered "lost", it was also found more than a century ago. If you would like to read it, simply look here:
Didache published by "Early Christian Writings". I myself have referred to it many times before on these forums. I don't think that Muslims are going to be so grateful for its recovery.
i'm ambivalent .
They confirm that the church taught the things that the Qu'ran says never happend from the very beginning, even before the gospels or the letters of Paul were ever written.
i would disagree with it being written before "Paulian" works, as you should as well.
For instance, it says: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water." No doubt, even though you won't yourself believe it factually true, you can see in this baptismal formula found in the didache the precursor to the more formal doctrine of the Trinity.
this
may imply a trinity, but it doesn't do any more than that. to pump out the text it could very well mean:
baptize into the name of the Father, Allah the One True God, Whom besides there is no other god
and of bene Elohim, Jesus the Christ, the Messenger of Allah
and of the Holy Spirit, Gibreel, who brought the Revelation from "the Father" to bene Elohim, Jesus the Christ.
meaning, of course, La Illaha Illallah wa Isa Rasulullah. and adding the explanation of Islam from Surah Al Fatihah, Iyyaka Na'budu, wa Iyyaka Nesta'een, which translates as You Alone we wroship adn You Alone we seek help.
we then read it as we believe there is no god but Allah, "the Father" and we agree to worship Him in the way taught to us by Rasulullah, bene Elohim, Jesus the Christ as he was taught the Revelation by the Holy Spirit, Gibreel.
looks OK to me!
Notice also when they would worship: "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together." This is not a reference to the Jewish Sabbath, but to the Christian habit of gathering for worship on Sunday.
this is one of the parts that gives it a later date.
It was called the "Lord's day" as a testimony regarding Jesus supposed resurrection on the first day of the week. I say "supposed" out of respect for your beliefs. But it is important that you understand that these Christians who wrote the Didache really did suppose it to have happened, that is why they had a day called "the Lord's day."
but in order for Jesus' prophecy of the Sign of Jonah to be fulfilled, the Resurrection COULD NOT have taken place on Sunday! the Resurrection would have had to have been on the Sabbath!
And as the video presents, this was again NOT Paul. Nor was it the Gospel writers. This is much earlier in the history of Christianity than that. This is at a time when Jesus' own family members were around to say that the even never happened. And we simply don't have that, even though we have lots of documents preserved from that time that had all sorts of descriptions of who Jesus was and what he did, from the miracles he supposedly performed as a child to his supposed marrying of Mary Magdalane. Many of these documents were considered down right heretical by the church. But they still exist and were NOT all destroyed as many falsely claim. And yet, not in a one of them do we have a denial by those who knew Jesus of what the Didache implicity testifies to, that the first generation of the church, those closest to Jesus, believed him to have been resurrection and baptized using a forumla that would put Jesus on par with God himself.
I'm not saying that you have to accept that those beliefs were true. But I do think that Muslims should quit asserting that this was invented by Paul, or that the disciples and first followers of Jesus never practiced any of these beliefs. The Didache shows that this was indeed their teaching, for this is what the term "Didache" means -- the teachings.
to quote Paul in Galatians:
Galatians 2
1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Paul, here indicates that he is preaching a new Gospel, the Gospel of Paul. this gospel is so different from the previous gospels that he has to communicate it "IN PRIVATE!"
and the dating of this document would put it later in the first century anywhere to mid 3rd century.
Other point that the video makes are important as well. The early church did understand Jesus' role as primarily that of being a servant.
agreed, that of Abd and Messenger, just like Muhammad ibn Abdullah, PBUH.
However, this is nothing that should surprise people as a new teaching. Look again at Mark, that concept is what the whole book is about. And John even elevates that thought to Jesus divine command to his disciples. Servanthood is central to all Christian teaching, for that is the core of what Jesus himself taught and it was affirmed by each of the Gospel writers, and, YES, by Paul as well.
which clearly indicates that "John" is written for a whole new Religion, and one that is no longer monotheistic.
I don't get why people suggest that it was something new. It is central to a proper understanding of Jesus as presented in the scriptures, and is even what is understood as having been prophesied about by Isaiah. Hence the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is understood to be the model for Jesus' own ministry.
