The Didache: Doctrines That Build on the Creed

[rewriter]

I already started comparing the TOI with the TOP in the Teachings of Jesus thread post #230 on p, 12:

TOJ #1: Jesus is the Son of God. [Luke 2:49, cf. John 3:16] Jesus’ first pupils were His parents. By the age of twelve Jesus realized that God was His heavenly Father (in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7). John 1:14 states that God’s Word/Spirit was incarnate in Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is God’s Son, “the exact representation of his being.”

Insofar as it is possible for the almighty, immortal and invisible God (1Tim. 1:17) to reveal Himself in a mortal human (Rom. 1:3), that person is Jesus (1Tim. 2:5). Jesus is the fullest possible revelation of the superhuman God (Col. 1:19) in the human dimension (Phil. 2:7-8). And with God all things are possible that do not contradict who He is (Matt. 19:26, Heb. 6:18). The “insofar” of this theophany is sufficient, so that the Son of God (Matt. 3:17, 17:5) or Messiah/Christ may be considered as Immanuel (Matt. 1:23) or God the Son {John 5:17-27, 10:25-38, 14:9f., 17:1-5}. This means that God may be understood as a Triunity (See TOJ #7, #49, #52 & #178).

TOP #9: The Gospel of God is that Jesus was a descendant of David, who was revealed by His resurrection to be the Son of God and Christ the Lord. [Rom. 1:1-4] Paul said Jesus had a human nature, and was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus, he should also be called Jesus Christ/Messiah our Lord.

God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19.

TOP #260: Jesus is God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s Being and co-creator of the universe, which is sustained by God’s Word. [Heb. 1:1-3a] This verse seems akin to John 1:1-3, 14-18 & 34, 3:16-18, etc., but John also calls Jesus the Son of Man (John 1:51, 3:13-14) and equates these Sonships in John 5:25-27.

TOP #261: After providing humanity purification for sins, Jesus returned to reign in heaven over the angels as God’s firstborn Son. [Heb. 1:3b-14, 2:5-9] Paul referred to Christ’s reign in 1Cor. 15:20-28 (cf. Jude v. 25).

I would welcome you to begin reading that thread from this point and commenting,
even citing Euripides if relevant.

You are well steeped in tradition, as were the PhD's in NT that I have shared far more with. They acknowledged their ignorance of Euripides and were stunned after reading my extensive writing, complete with footnotes, and all agreed that they would likely never have caught the points without my extensive writing. You proclaimed that you thought you could without knowledge of Euripides and did exactly what the PhD's said they would have done without the extensive writing, so just wait until I get tis work finished and to the publisher.

But know that one key point is that Rome won the 1st Jewish war and destroyed both existent Jewish temples, something that all Jews "knew" (just like Christians know tradition) could not happen, and note my argument about dating the histories in the NT. only Matthew might still exist in a pre-70's form and Luke-Acts was definitely written post-fall of Jerusalem.

 

[GWH]

You are well steeped in tradition, as were the PhD's in NT that I have shared far more with. They acknowledged their ignorance of Euripides and were stunned after reading my extensive writing, complete with footnotes, and all agreed that they would likely never have caught the points without my extensive writing. You proclaimed that you thought you could without knowledge of Euripides and did exactly what the PhD's said they would have done without the extensive writing, so just wait until I get tis work finished and to the publisher.

But know that one key point is that Rome won the 1st Jewish war and destroyed both existent Jewish temples, something that all Jews "knew" (just like Christians know tradition) could not happen, and note my argument about dating the histories in the NT. only Matthew might still exist in a pre-70's form and Luke-Acts was definitely written post-fall of Jerusalem.

I gather that you decided not to enlighten us about the importance of Euripides in the history of beliefs on a CC thread.

I know the Roman empire conquered the Greeks, destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and then was whittled down by various Germanic tribes.

Please note that I make a distinction between authoring and writing.
Jesus authored the gospels, which were written later, but documents
written late in the second century lose the aura of apostolic authorship.

 

[rewriter]

I gather that you decided not to enlighten us about the importance of Euripides in the history of beliefs on a CC thread.

I know the Roman empire conquered the Greeks, destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and then was whittled down by various Germanic tribes.

Please note that I make a distinction between authoring and writing.
Jesus authored the gospels, which were written later, but documents
written late in the second century lose the aura of apostolic authorship.

Are you also aware of just how popular the Romans were? We hear about how some Jews liked the Romans, which is not historically accurate based on how other groups acted. What do you know about the Asiatic Vespers, also relevant? What about Carrhae? Do you know that there is evidence that the gospels have not recorded the actual truth about some things, such as that Pilate did not order Jesus scrourged?

Very likely you do not know of these things. Euripides supports the Jews in general being opposed to Rome. Multiple well-regarded commentators of the Gospel of John have pointed out connections between Euripides and John. Paul's epistles hint at connections with Euripides, but obscure ones such as women's hair and 2 Timothy 3:16. But tradition says ignore these connections, they are irrelevant. Tradition tells you to actively attack any connection, and you seem eager to obey that dog whistle. When I warn you that without awareness of Euripides you will not catch things, you proclaim that you while you do not know Euripides, you can spot the obscure. John's Prologue has an almost perfect parallel in Euripides, other events in the gospel parallel Euripides. The connections with Paul and John would have bothered Rome, then after Rome was able to destroy both Jewish temples (you do know there were two don't you?) it became obvious that the perceived connections were not valid and needed to be rapidly corrected. Since John and Mark both openly supported them, both were edited. Matthew retains some potential hints, and may or may not have been edited, that is not clear. But Luke-Acts actively refutes the connections, but unless you know Euripides, you will simply not see it. Even worse, you will listen to tradition tell you a different story and tell you to accept it as the truth, so you do.

How many years have you listened to tradition, been reassured by tradition that it tells you the truth, followed the lead of teachers who were told not to look at certain things, so they did not, and taught you not to look at them. The NT profs I have worked with all want to know what made me look at things that are consistently taught as irrelevant and not historical even as they agree that my version explains what was considered inexplicable,

I often ask questions in here that no one even attempts to answer or even acknowledge, then you and others object when I do not answer questions that require extensive explanations.

So let us try one more time on a simple question, either answer or admit that you wish to be held to a different standard than I am. In Romans 1:25 it references "THE truth" and "THE lie". What is that singular lie that leads to all the problems? The answer is easy, but it upends traditional theology.

 

[GWH]

Are you also aware of just how popular the Romans were? We hear about how some Jews liked the Romans, which is not historically accurate based on how other groups acted. What do you know about the Asiatic Vespers, also relevant? What about Carrhae? Do you know that there is evidence that the gospels have not recorded the actual truth about some things, such as that Pilate did not order Jesus scrourged?

Very likely you do not know of these things. Euripides supports the Jews in general being opposed to Rome. Multiple well-regarded commentators of the Gospel of John have pointed out connections between Euripides and John. Paul's epistles hint at connections with Euripides, but obscure ones such as women's hair and 2 Timothy 3:16. But tradition says ignore these connections, they are irrelevant. Tradition tells you to actively attack any connection, and you seem eager to obey that dog whistle. When I warn you that without awareness of Euripides you will not catch things, you proclaim that you while you do not know Euripides, you can spot the obscure. John's Prologue has an almost perfect parallel in Euripides, other events in the gospel parallel Euripides. The connections with Paul and John would have bothered Rome, then after Rome was able to destroy both Jewish temples (you do know there were two don't you?) it became obvious that the perceived connections were not valid and needed to be rapidly corrected. Since John and Mark both openly supported them, both were edited. Matthew retains some potential hints, and may or may not have been edited, that is not clear. But Luke-Acts actively refutes the connections, but unless you know Euripides, you will simply not see it. Even worse, you will listen to tradition tell you a different story and tell you to accept it as the truth, so you do.

How many years have you listened to tradition, been reassured by tradition that it tells you the truth, followed the lead of teachers who were told not to look at certain things, so they did not, and taught you not to look at them. The NT profs I have worked with all want to know what made me look at things that are consistently taught as irrelevant and not historical even as they agree that my version explains what was considered inexplicable,

I often ask questions in here that no one even attempts to answer or even acknowledge, then you and others object when I do not answer questions that require extensive explanations.

So let us try one more time on a simple question, either answer or admit that you wish to be held to a different standard than I am. In Romans 1:25 it references "THE truth" and "THE lie". What is that singular lie that leads to all the problems? The answer is easy, but it upends traditional theology.

I am aware that the Pas Romana was fortuitous for enabling Paul to evangelize.
The Asiatic or Ephesian Vespers refers to Mithridates of Pontus conducting ethnic cleansing of 80,000 Romans in 88 B.C.
Carrhae was a town in Anatolia where the Parthians defeated the Romans, killing 20,000, in 53 B.C.
There is no credible historical evidence that Pilate did not have Jesus scourged.

Regarding Euripides' Bacchae" and John, both Dionysus and Jesus were divine beings from heaven who were rejected, and both are reported as turning water into wine. You seem eager to think that both traditions are myths.

Re Romans 1:25, the truth is that the Creator exists, and the lie is that He does not exist. Atheism leads to all sorts of problems.

 

[rewriter]

I am aware that the Pas Romana was fortuitous for enabling Paul to evangelize.
The Asiatic or Ephesian Vespers refers to Mithridates of Pontus conducting ethnic cleansing of 80,000 Romans in 88 B.C.
Carrhae was a town in Anatolia where the Parthians defeated the Romans, killing 20,000, in 53 B.C.
There is no credible historical evidence that Pilate did not have Jesus scourged.

Regarding Euripides' Bacchae" and John, both Dionysus and Jesus were divine beings from heaven who were rejected, and both are reported as turning water into wine. You seem eager to think that both traditions are myths.

Re Romans 1:25, the truth is that the Creator exists, and the lie is that He does not exist. Atheism leads to all sorts of problems.

You show some knowledge, but what are the implications of that knowledge? What was the aftermath of the Asiatic Vespers and how are they relevant to understanding the NT. How is Carrhae reflected in the NT? What makes you so certain that there is not evidence that it was Pilate did not order Jesus scourged? I will admit that the evidence is obscure, I found it in a footnote of a journal article originally published in Italian, so it is both hard to find and easy to overlook, but it fits with other easy to ignore details from the NT that require specialized knowledge to spot.

And since the Lie is universal among people, as implied in Romans, are all people atheists or is rather atheism a convenient cover to avoid facing what the real lie is? I personally see a more fundamental lie that leads to atheism and directly causes all the described problems for all people, including believers.

 

[GWH]

You show some knowledge, but what are the implications of that knowledge? What was the aftermath of the Asiatic Vespers and how are they relevant to understanding the NT. How is Carrhae reflected in the NT? What makes you so certain that there is not evidence that it was Pilate did not order Jesus scourged? I will admit that the evidence is obscure, I found it in a footnote of a journal article originally published in Italian, so it is both hard to find and easy to overlook, but it fits with other easy to ignore details from the NT that require specialized knowledge to spot.

And since the Lie is universal among people, as implied in Romans, are all people atheists or is rather atheism a convenient cover to avoid facing what the real lie is? I personally see a more fundamental lie that leads to atheism and directly causes all the described problems for all people, including believers.

The implication is that such information may be mildly interesting but does not amount to anything more than mere speculation.

We must assume all who believe the lie of atheism will not receive the blessing of God (John 8:42-44).

 

[rewriter]

The implication is that such information may be mildly interesting but does not amount to anything more than mere speculation.

We must assume all who believe the lie of atheism will not receive the blessing of God (John 8:42-44).

Let us try a simple question that the 1st century Jews would have instantly known the answer to while 1st century Romans would have had to guess at, and most likely gotten wrong. How many permanent members of the Sanhedrin, and thus eligible to be high ranking were there? Now in the Roman Senate there were numerous permanent members, and an often-changing number. Further in the Roman Senate there were many factors determining who might be considered "high ranking" including family status, one's status within the family, political connections and any scandals involving a specific person. But the gospels assure us that Joseph of Aramthea was a high ranking member of the Sanhedrin, so how many possible individuals could he have been among.

If you need a hint, that is if your knowledge on this point is the same as the typical 1st century Roman, think of a whole number larger than zero and less than two.

 

[GWH]

Let us try a simple question that the 1st century Jews would have instantly known the answer to while 1st century Romans would have had to guess at, and most likely gotten wrong. How many permanent members of the Sanhedrin, and thus eligible to be high ranking were there? Now in the Roman Senate there were numerous permanent members, and an often-changing number. Further in the Roman Senate there were many factors determining who might be considered "high ranking" including family status, one's status within the family, political connections and any scandals involving a specific person. But the gospels assure us that Joseph of Aramthea was a high ranking member of the Sanhedrin, so how many possible individuals could he have been among.

If you need a hint, that is if your knowledge on this point is the same as the typical 1st century Roman, think of a whole number larger than zero and less than two.

There were 71 members of the Sanhedrin during the first century, consisting of chief priests, elders and scribes,
who served as the Jewish high court. Because he was described as rich and not in Jerusalem, my guess is that he was an elder.

 

[rewriter]

There were 71 members of the Sanhedrin during the first century, consisting of chief priests, elders and scribes,
who served as the Jewish high court. Because he was described as rich and not in Jerusalem, my guess is that he was an elder.

The Sanhedrin consisted of 72 or 144 people, but all but one of them were chosen from those immediately available whenever there was a meeting. The only one who was always a member was the High Priest hence he was the only one who could be considered "high ranking" as he was the only one who always was part. How could someone be "high-ranking" if there was no guarantee he would ever serve as part of the Sanhedrin? Now other priests, elders and scribes might be brought in for any meeting to achieve the required number, likely chosen according to which specific school of thought a specific high priest belonged to. Without looking it up, and I do not see the need, I cannot remember which school of thought called for the higher number.

As for being in Jerusalem, people were identified by where their family line was from, not necessarily where they were living at the time. Jesus was Jesus of Nazareth well after he left the community for example.

 

[GWH]

The Sanhedrin consisted of 72 or 144 people, but all but one of them were chosen from those immediately available whenever there was a meeting. The only one who was always a member was the High Priest hence he was the only one who could be considered "high ranking" as he was the only one who always was part. How could someone be "high-ranking" if there was no guarantee he would ever serve as part of the Sanhedrin? Now other priests, elders and scribes might be brought in for any meeting to achieve the required number, likely chosen according to which specific school of thought a specific high priest belonged to. Without looking it up, and I do not see the need, I cannot remember which school of thought called for the higher number.

As for being in Jerusalem, people were identified by where their family line was from, not necessarily where they were living at the time. Jesus was Jesus of Nazareth well after he left the community for example.

The High Priest would be considered highest ranking.
The point regarding being in Jerusalem was that JoA may have gotten rich in business rather than from gifts to the temple.

 

[rewriter]

The High Priest would be considered highest ranking.
The point regarding being in Jerusalem was that JoA may have gotten rich in business rather than from gifts to the temple.

JoA would also have been exceedingly rich to have been able to access what he did as rapidly as he did. He gathered institutional levels of valuable items in less than three hours. He would have had to have employed a number of guards to protect his resources or else have benefited from extraordinarily fortuitous timing and spent an exorbitant amount of money at the drop of a hat. But even that would not explain some other obscure details including known, but ignored, numismatic ones.

 

[GWH]

Some didachaic topics are not specifically addressed in Scripture, so Christians must endeavor to discern how various Biblical moral teachings might be applicable. One example is abortion. How does Biblical teaching apply to the abortion debate?

Two passages (Exo. 21:22-25 & Luke 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening (cf. Psa. 139:13-16). Perhaps Exo. 20:13 can be understood as implying, “Thou shalt not murder thy baby”. However, because believers do not dictate government policies, they need to share logical as well as biblical reasons for not aborting babies.

Logically, the crucial question is this: "When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?" Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. As a person considers two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, he/she should understand that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood.

Those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies, but there is logical reason to consider personhood beginning the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). We might call this presence of crucial brain waves “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life.

Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. In the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately.

Migration is another topic not discussed in Scripture that is related to morality and politics. IMO it is the very difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion about God’s will regarding migration. What biblical teachings are applicable?

The Bible mentions the migration of Cain (in Gen. 4:12 & 16) and migrations following the building of the tower at Babel (in Gen. 11:1-9). Secular histories cite migrations by unknown peoples that established civilizations near the mouths of the Indus, Nile and Euphrates rivers, followed by Akkadians invading the Sumerians and Aryans invading India about 2270 B.C. Abram migrated from Mesopotamia (per Gen. 12:1-10), then Israel settled in Egypt because of famine in Canaan (Gen. 35:1-21 & 46:1-7), and Moses led the Israelites from Egypt back to Canaan (Exo. 13:17-20, 15:22-16:1, 17:1, 19:1-2, 33:1-2, Num. 21:10-31 & Num. 33), driving out the Canaanites so that their idolatry would not cause them to sin.

Listing the history of ancient migrations is not very helpful for deciding how immigration should be done, so let us consider how more modern migrations should have been done in accordance with God’s Will. We might begin with the the proscriptions against murder and stealing in the Torah (Exo. 20:13&15). The Golden Rule also seems applicable: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matt. 7:12). These commands indicate that when people migrate they must do so with the intention of compensating the owners of the new land rather than of conquering them by means of violence.

These commands were applied when Christians migrated from Europe to America, but not later during the pacification of the American Indians by the U.S. government. Nor were they applied after WWII when Jews moved to Palestine, which began a war that has continued ever since. It would seem that God’s will would have been for the Americans and Jews to purchase land from the inhabitant and obtain a legal deed. Besides being peaceful, it would have been cheaper in the cost of lives!

Most recently and currently, migration occurring over the U.S. borders is causing a moral quandary. There is a line of people seeking to enter by a vetting process, so what justification can there be for people to cut in line by stealing across the border illegally? The right of an individual home owner to require entrants to be invited seems applicable to a nation regarding control of its borders.

Your thoughts?

 

[GWH]

My thinking is that God loves everyone in the world (John 3:16) and includes all kinds of people in His plan of salvation (Gal. 3:28-29, 1Tim. 2:3-4). Thus, we all have equal rights, which need to be respected as people move about planet Earth.
There is no justification for feeling superior to anyone of a different nationality or civilization.
As we have mentioned, migration needs to occur without murder or stealing (Matt. 19:18). Selfishness by those who have something does not justify stealing by those who lack and desire it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
However, the rich should share (2Cor. 8:14). Those who have an abundance of land or material possessions should realize they have no divine right to hoard it, but on the contrary they have a divine command from God to be compassionate toward the poor.

Paul taught that those who are able should work (2Thes. 3:10), so a valid reason for migration would seem to be in order to look for a job.
Other considerations include the need to practice birth control in order to be good stewards of the planet and not over-populate a family more that parents can provide for or pollute our world.
Also, good governors and employers are needed, who will legislate opportunity and pay fairly.

Like I said, immigration is a difficult moral issue to figure out.

I would like your suggestions about how the European migration to America should have happened.

 

[GWH]

My thinking is that God loves everyone in the world (John 3:16) and includes all kinds of people in His plan of salvation (Gal. 3:28-29, 1Tim. 2:3-4). Thus, we all have equal rights, which need to be respected as people move about planet Earth.
There is no justification for feeling superior to anyone of a different nationality or civilization.
As we have mentioned, migration needs to occur without murder or stealing (Matt. 19:18). Selfishness by those who have something does not justify stealing by those who lack and desire it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
However, the rich should share (2Cor. 8:14). Those who have an abundance of land or material possessions should realize they have no divine right to hoard it, but on the contrary they have a divine command from God to be compassionate toward the poor.

Paul taught that those who are able should work (2Thes. 3:10), so a valid reason for migration would seem to be in order to look for a job.
Other considerations include the need to practice birth control in order to be good stewards of the planet and not over-populate a family more that parents can provide for or pollute our world.
Also, good governors and employers are needed, who will legislate opportunity and pay fairly.

Like I said, immigration is a difficult moral issue to figure out.

I would like your suggestions about how the European migration to America should have happened.

Seeing no suggestions, I will do some thinking out loud--I mean on paper, no, while typing.

1. Here comes a shipful of pilgrims to Plymouth Rock, which lands, and the folks begin to build a settlement,
hunting wild game to cure for the winter.

2. Along comes some Americans, who ask, "Who are you, where did you pop in from, and why are you dressed so weird?"

3. The pilgrims answer the questions and ask whom to see about purchasing a plot of land.

4. The Americans inform them that no one owns the land but God, so they are free to settle as long as they do not bother natives.

5. The pilgrims agree and invite the Americans to join them for a thanksgiving dinner at their convenience.

6. The Americans accept, the pilgrims become fellow Americans, everyone learns both languages,
and the rest is a boring history without scalps. No scalps, but perhaps scalped potatoes at thanksgiving.

No KOTH, OK?

 

[GWH]

I see that rewriter agrees with my perception of how God prefers for immigration to happen,
but now the question becomes how it should happen after every square inch of earth is owned.
(We might continue to use the US as the location.)

Any insights?

 

[dkontner]

Isaiah 1​

7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

Isaiah 3​

12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

 

[GWH]

Isaiah 1​

7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

Isaiah 3​

12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

I see how Isa. 1:7 is applicable to western nations (formerly known as Christendom) being invaded by immigrating Marxists and Islamists. That is now NOT to do immigration. Good find! Thanks.

 

[GWH]

Although many translations chop up Ephesians 1:3-14 to help readability, the Lexham English Bible (LEB) stays faithful to the original Greek and keeps it together:

“Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love, having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace that he bestowed on us in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, that he caused to abound to us in all wisdom and insight, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in him, for the administration of the fullness of times, to bring together all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him in whom also we were chosen, having been predestined according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of his will, that we who hoped beforehand in Christ should be for the praise of his glory, in whom also you, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also when you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.”

The astute will notice that the key word used most often is IN, signifying spiritual union with Christ via saving faith.

The sentence indicates that the reason God created the world was in order to provide humanity the opportunity of having eternal fellowship with Him via Christ Jesus.

This is our didachaic teaching for today.

 

[GWH]

Another topic in the didachaic category of doctrine is pollution, referring to contamination of our environment by the activities of humans that are harmful to their health.

Like abortion, migration and other activities, the Bible does not comment on environmental issues directly, but I find three passages that contain implications for this subject:

First, when God created the earth, it was good and free of pollution (Gen. 1:31).
Second, when God assigned mankind the task of stewardship over the earth, He did not command them to over-populate and pollute it (Gen. 1:28-30).
Third, I view the injunctions of Paul against prostitution (in 1Cor. 6:12-13) as possibly applicable also to pollution using the following reasoning. Burning fossil fuels and depleting species of food is “permissible” or legal, but it is not thereby “beneficial” or moral. Our corporate body, the human race, is not meant for raping the resources God has entrusted to our care, and God will allow unfaithful and foolish stewards to destroy themselves (Matt. 25:14-30).

Are there other relevant Scriptures or reasoning regarding pollution that you see?
Might Eph. 4:29 and 5:4 apply to noise pollution?

 

[GWH]

Didachaic doctrines include those that are discerned via the correct exercise of the divine gift of logic.
For example, I view the following statements as logically a priori or unavoidable beliefs that are thus para-Scripture:

1. Truth or reality (your #1&4-7) exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am”. The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers (your #2&3, cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isa. 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Of course, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, it is necessary to have a common language.