Evidence for God from Science

Let's look at the eschatological exposition of the Didache:

Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time.

For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself.

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

That is clearly not Praeterist. The 'last days' are still future. The 'world-deceiver' is still future. The return of Christ as described in the Olivet prophecy is still future. The Christians who wrote this didn't believe that Nero was the 'man of sin' of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9. When would you date the Didache? It doesn't really matter when you date it, because whenever you date it, this document is still going to remain a problem for Praeterism.

Quite a few scholars date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD. In any case, it is definitely not premillennial.

puritan lad wrote:Quite a few scholars date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD.

Which, as I have pointed out, is still a problem for you, especially since it puts the 'man of sin' in the future (so it obviously isn't any of the Roman emperors). And 'quite a few scholars' is how many, exactly? And which scholars?

In any case, it is definitely not premillennial.

I wasn't saying it is premil. It doesn't say anything about the millennium at all. But it is very clear that Christ appears before the Kingdom.

Let's see the evidence that 'Quite a few scholars' date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD. From this site:

Draper states in a footnote (op. cit., p. 284), "A new consensus is emerging for a date c. 100 AD."

...the trend is to date the Didache much earlier, at least by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and in the case of Jean-P. Audet, as early as 50-70 C.E."

...thus the Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel."

It was written sometime in the late first or early second century...

The Didache, an early second-century Christian composition...

...the first six chapters seem to be a Christian redaction of a Jewish document entitled The Two Ways, while the rest is the work of several Christian writers, the earliest belonging to the first century and the latest perhaps to the fourth.

Out of that entire list, only one recognized scholar proposes the date range to which you refer.

Only one scholar out of 5 or 6?? He must be wrong then huh?

From Gary DeMar...

"Didache authority Kurt Niederwimmer, after a thorough study of the document, concludes that "the date of the Didache is a matter of judgment." In addition to MacArthur's "most scholars," none of whom he cites, other scholars believe that the Didache was composed before A.D. 70. In the authoritative work The Apostolic Fathers, we read the following:

A remarkably wide range of dates, extending from before A.D. 50 to the third century or later, has been proposed for this document. . . . The Didache may have been put into its present form as late as 150, though a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more plausible. The materials from which it was composed, however, reflect the state of the church at an even earlier time. The relative simplicity of the prayers, the continuing concern to differentiate Christian practice from Jewish rituals (8.1), and in particular the form of church structure—note the twofold structure of bishops and deacons (cf. Phil. 1:1) and the continued existence of traveling apostles and prophets alongside a resident ministry—reflect a time closer to that of Paul and James (who died in the 60s) than Ignatius (who died sometime after 110).

The definitive work on the Didache was written by the French Canadian Jean-Paul Audet who concluded "that it was composed, almost certainly in Antioch , between 50 and 70," "contemporary with the first gospel writings." In an earlier edition of The Apostolic Fathers we read a similar conclusion: "In his very thorough commentary J.-P. Audet suggests about A.D. 70, and he is not likely to be off by more than a decade in either direction." Even liberal scholars, who tend to date all New Testament documents late, acknowledge the evidence for an early date for the Didache. For example, Stephen J. Patterson comments that the trend is to date the document early, "at least by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and in the case of Jean-P. Audet, as early as 50—70 C.E." Andrew Louth writes that many scholars would date the Didache "earlier than the New Testament itself." Aaron Milavec's 1000-page study of the Didache also places its composition sometime between A.D. 50 and 70."

There. Now I have as many scholars as you do (if you don't count Demar). Do I win yet? It seems to me that all of your arguments are Argumentum ad numerum. Even then, your evidence is less than compelling.

Fortigurn wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Quite a few scholars date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD.

Which, as I have pointed out, is still a problem for you, especially since it puts the 'man of sin' in the future (so it obviously isn't any of the Roman emperors).

I never said that the man of sin was a Roman Emperor. But even if he was, how is that a problem if the Didache has an early date?

puritan lad wrote:Only one scholar out of 5 or 6?? He must be wrong then huh?

No, not necessarily. But you claimed that 'Quite a few scholars' date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD, and you haven't supported this claim yet.

From Gary DeMar...

So we have:

* The claim that 'other scholars believe that the Didache was composed before AD 70' (but not between 50 AD and 70 AD), but unfortunately only two are listed (one of whom I already gave), and more are listed who believe it was composed after 70 AD

* An acknowledgment that 'The Didache may have been put into its present form as late as 150, though a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more plausible'

* Audet suggesting a date between 50 and 70 AD, with 'about 70 AD' being his date of choice - I already quoted Audet myself, so this is nothing new

* Aaron Milvaect 'places its composition somewhere between A.D. 50 and 70'

So that's only two. Where are all the others? Remember, your claim was 'Quite a few scholars' date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD, and you haven't supported this claim yet. Where are they?

There. Now I have as many scholars as you do (if you don't count Demar).

No, you've given me two, one of whom I already quoted.

Do I win yet?

No, this is not an argumentum ad populum.

It seems to me that all of your arguments are Argumentum ad numerum.

You mean 'argumentum ad populum'. You keep making this claim, and I keep refuting it. I have never once based an argument on such grounds. I have repeatedly rejected it. For example, have repeatedly said that even the fact that the overwhelming number of ECFs were Historicists does not necessarily mean Historicism is true.

In this case, it was you who made an appeal to numbers, saying 'Quite a few scholars' date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD. I have simply challenged you to prove this claim. To date you've given me two, one of whom I already quoted. I have shown you that the actual academic consensus contradicts you.

puritan lad wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

puritan lad wrote:Quite a few scholars date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD.

Which, as I have pointed out, is still a problem for you, especially since it puts the 'man of sin' in the future (so it obviously isn't any of the Roman emperors).

I never said that the man of sin was a Roman Emperor.

I know you didn't. I'm pointing out that the Didache believed that the 'man of sin' was still future, so whoever wrote it clearly didn't believe (as many Praeterists do), that it was an existing Roman emperor such as Nero.

But even if he was, how is that a problem if the Didache has an early date?

You have it backwards. I didn't say that it would be a problem for the Didache if the 'man of sin' was a Roman emperor. You still have to explain why the Didache (the earliest systematic extra-Biblical witness to the 1st century Christian community), contains an eschatology which is incompatible with Praeterism but perfectly compatible with Historicism.

If the Didache was written much before 70 AD, then it's teaching is completely compatible with Preterism.

BTW: Argument ad numerum and argument ad populum are different. Ad populum is more along popular opinion, whereas ad numerum focuses on numbers of a selective audience, in this case "scholars". We aren't really debating popular opinion, but that is OK.

(So you win 5 to 2). Congratulations. So what does that prove???

puritan lad wrote:If the Didache was written much before 70 AD, then it's teaching is completely compatible with Preterism.

Really? They didn't believe they were in the 'last days'. They believed the 'last days' were yet future. That's 'compatible with Praeterism? Remember, the apostles believed they were in the 'last days', but whoever wrote the Didache didn't believe they were in the 'last days'. So if they wrote it during the times of the apostles, they didn't agree with the apostles (and didn't agree with Praeterism), but if they wrote it after the times of the apostles, then they still didn't agree with Praeterism because they believed the 'last days' were yet future, and hadn't been fulfilled by 70 AD.

BTW: Argument ad numerum and argument ad populum are different. Ad populum is more along popular opinion, whereas ad numerum focuses on numbers of a selective audience, in this case "scholars". We aren't really debating popular opinion, but that is OK.

I believe you're making a false distinction.

(So you win 5 to 2). Congratulations. So what does that prove???

What it proves is that your claim 'Quite a few scholars date the Didache between 50 and 70 AD' is false. But as I've pointed out, the Didache remains a real problem for Praeterists no matter when it was written.