Chapter: 9, Part: 3, Section: 3

- Jesus in Islam - Part: 3, section: 3

 

 

 

Accordance of  first ever Christian Church Order  "Didache" with  the Koran

 

 

"The Didache" or "Teaching of the Apostles" turns Jesus out as Muslim and no Christian

 

“…the world-deceiver {shall appear} as a son of God;” (Didache 16:8)

 

Third section of three

 

This file is also available in  Arabic  (click here) and  as PDF, ZIP and WORD.EXE

 

To begin with,  we want to make clear that the “Didache” or “Teaching of the Apostles”

 

  • is earlier than the chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) of Christian “New Testament” and
  • the notion of "apostles" in this context refers to the left eleven "apostles" and the flock that is mentioned in Lu 10:1. This first ever Christian Church Order
  • never was declared a non-authentic scripture by Christian sect.

 

The popes could not do so since one of the most important trick is lying without blushing that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and his early very henchmen were “lovable” people. They are – against better knowledge – lied as individuals  only wanting to “love” everybody, permanently looking for the end of the world (Christians’ cant: “kingdom of god”), being unable even  to hurt a fly and always prosecuted by the evil world… This trick that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and his early henchmen are excellent but everything in Christian sect was vitiated by Christian (Catholic) church was not applied by German desperado Martin L., first. It exists since there is this foul play (Christian sect).

 

We want to debunk this trick as Christian masking, right from the beginning of this sect. James – the so-called brother of the Lord who died before the year 50 C.E.  -- complains that the sect of his brother is a negative selection of criminals (his brother’s cant: “the sick needing a physician” (see: Mt 9:12. Mr 2:17, Lu 5:31):

 

Jas 4:1-2 NKJV

1 ¶  Where do wars and fights come from among you (Christians)? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?

2  You lust and do not have. You (Christians)  murder and covet and cannot obtain. You (Christians) fight and war.

 

Here, i.e. by Christian fake of “god’s word” it is proven that Christians are felons, even murderers, right from the beginning. German desperado Martin L. -- instigator of Christian Protestantism -- seeing that this part of Christian “god’s word” is evidence against his lie of the “lovable” early Christian community vitiated by Catholic church wanted to do that what Christian rogues  ever did: blotting out all evidence that belies Christian impostors.  Martin L. wanted to remove this epistle  from Christian “New Testament” although he always vowed that one only needs to refer to the scripture (“sola scriptura”) -- purportedly the most "certain" and "truthful matter" in the world... One Christian bigwig is as perfidious as another one!

 

Declaring the first ever Church Order to be “non-authentic”, i.e. a lie, forgery etc. or as false, belies the just mentioned trick of Christian deceit. It would “prove” the contrary of the lie in question. It would prove that the beginning of Christian sect (Ben-Pandera and his closet henchmen) was foul and always was to “improve” by later halfwits pretending to know everything better than those to which they refer for sham-evidence… Christian sect saw that it could not paint the “nice picture” of very, very early Christianity, on the one hand and declare the first   Christian Church Order as blasphemy... However, compared to very early Christianity, either Christianity of today or early Christianity is blasphemy… However, since Christianity is based on occurrences, e.g.

 

  • “virginal birth”,
  • “immaculate conception” as shammed “evidence” for Ben-Pandera “deity” or
  • his “crucifixion”,
  • “resurrection from the dead” and
  • “bodily ascension of heaven” to claim “vicarious atonement” for all the Christians -

 

those, who are closer to the occurrences, are better witnesses of them than those living centuries later and only hearing about the real or fancied  events from others. Therefore, the very early Christian sect is original Christianity. This stays true even if later Christian followers find faults with Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and his closets henchmen (Christians’ cant: “disciple”) that they did not study “wise” Catholic “theology”…

 

The comparison of the Didache with Christianity of today, i.e. the comparison of original Christianity with later (by popes and councils) fabricated Christian sect, provides evidence that Christian sect concocted their “doctrines” and “dogmas” as it needed them to bluff, hoodwink, bamboozle and trap their victims. I.e. Christian sect fabricated that what it calls “inerrant” and “absolute true” doctrines in order to rule, dominate and control the masses corresponding to the Christian bigwigs’ or slaveholders’ (Christians’ cant: “good shepherds”) obsession with lust for power. That what they deemed to be expedient for that, they contrived as “inerrant” and “absolutely true” belief. Being desperadoes, they even terrorized those who contradict them in that way that they have to go to hell, unless they already burnt them while being alive. That what a sect threatens others purportedly to happen (in hell), they already inflict on them here if they have the political power to do so with impunity… Tell me the hell of somebody and I will tell you what harm he wants to inflict on you, if you withstand his obsession with lust for power! 

 

 The claim that their once had been marvelous Christianity is the same lie as that one about Loch ness or that there are green men on the Mars.   

 

The known  structure of “gospels” that today is presented as a matter of course, e.g., the

 

  • story of the birth of Jesus (the death penalty convict) (by the way, cribbed from Christian rival Mithras religions[1]),
  • juggling of sorcery,
  • dissemination “tenets” and doctrines,
  • purported permanent prosecution by the Jewish clergies,
  • “vicarious suffering on the cross” for the redemption of the sins of his believers,
  • the sorcerers’ “resurrection from  the dead” and
  • announcement of doomsday

 

is no matter of course but a later profile to which the so-called “authentic gospels” were concocted. Even each of  today known “authentic gospel” does not comply with that profile, for instance, Mark and John refuse to adopt the story about Jesus’ (the death penalty convict’s) birth, as already said cribbed from the rival Mithras religion. 

 

After having fabricated the “authentic gospels” and finally canonized them (that means: having made the writings part of Christian “New Testament”) in the year 367, Christian tried eradicating all other early “gospels” and other corresponding “writings” to blur, darken and hide from what other already existing scriptures the alleged “authentic gospels” are cribbed and concocted. Hereby the followers of perfidy and lust for power (Christians), in particular, did not only want to keep secret what they

 

  • adopted but also
  • “complemented” and what they
  • omitted, i.e., what they
  • concealed. 

 

However to produce more conclusive evidence, we first want to demonstrate what tenets the Christians disseminated, before the so-called “authentic” "gospels" came into being.  Christians later and still today perpetrated deception that immediately after Jesus', i. e. the felon's, disappearance from the view (thieves' cant: “crucifixion” and “resurrection from the dead”) four “honest” Christian “authorities” set down the “gospels” from the remembrance of their own. That is a brazen lie!  For this insidious deception, Christians tried blotting out almost all early scriptures of theirs. At best, only  those four concocted chronicles should exist, they fake as "authentic gospels", until today.

 

So, before pointing out the concoctions of the so-called “authentic gospels”, we want to expound that what was taught before, to make known what the “authentic gospels” changed.

 

 

Due to the already mentioned crime, Christian church by and by tried destroying everything that could convict it lying and deceiving. This was a hard job and not  only one but a lot of  unscrupulous deceivers could accomplish that. Of course, for reasons we already pointed out, Christian sect wanted to blot out the knowledge of the Didache and succeeded to do so, for centuries. The scripture was rediscovered in a monastery in Istanbul (Turkey) and in modern times first was republished in 1883. Since this writing is very important evidence for the aim of our exposition, we first want to expound credibility and, in particular, significance of it for very early Christian sect.

 

Let us recall, it is  about a scripture that never was condemned by Christian sect (Christians’ cant: “church”) to be non-authentic for reasons we already pointed out. Not only the author of this exposition  but also many Christians “theologians” assumed that this scripture stems about from the year 50. This also would mean a great influence of Ben-Pandera’s stepbrother James, who was the immediate successor of Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) as head of the Christian community in Jerusalem.  Roswell D. Hitchcock, the editor publishing the English translation of the “Didache” on www.reluctant-messenger.com    writes:

 

“The Didache claims to have been authored by the twelve apostles. While this is unlikely, the work could be a direct result of the first Apostolic Council, c.50 C.E. <Acts 15:28>.  Similarities to the Apostolic Decree are apparent, and the given structure of the church is quite primitive… Most scholars agree that the work, in its earliest form, may have circulated as early as the 60's C.E., though additions and modifications may have taken place well into the third century. The work was never officially rejected by the Church, but was excluded from the canon for its lack of literary value.”[2]

 

 

The claim “…for its lack of literary value” is a transparent presumption that shall divert attention from the fact that the “Didache” diametrically contradicts that what today is fobbed off as “inerrant” and “absolute true” Christian “truths”. Concerning Christian “theologians”, one always has to keep in mind that they try telling as well Christian lies as deceits and therefore assume everything favorable for Christian deception, unless they make themselves a laughing stock. Jonathan Draper explains this scripture’s significance in the following way:

 

 

“It (the Didache) has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life. Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C 2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate independently. Athanasius describes it as 'appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness' [Festal Letter 39:7].”[3]

 

 

The view that the Didache   “largely agrees with the picture presented by the” New Testament obviously is founded by the slogan “faith shifts mountains” (see: Mt 17:20) and the truths anyway. As illustrated here, “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a very important element of early Christianity, in fact to early churches of the Orient that are less or not at all under the Vatican’s thumb.  Therefore, the doctrines presented by the Didache typify very early Christianity.

 

That means before any “authentic” chronicle (Christians’ cant: “gospel”) was concocted, compiled and edited, this scripture

 

·  firstly did not only exist but

·  secondly as well presents theory as

·  thirdly practice of  very early  Christian sect.  It more over

·  fourthly was effective indeed for centuries.

 

Some Christian “theologians” for honest or dishonest reasons contest the early date of the “Didache”. A German “theologian”  Udo Schnelle writes:

 

"The Didache means by 'the gospel' (8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4) the Gospel of Matthew; thus the Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel."[4]

 

Statements like this one are the right stuff to crack jokes about Christian “theologians”, who claim to be scientists. Not in the least, there is evidence for that saying. Such statement is due to Christian “theologians’ belief “ that “faith” (hereby they mean perfidy) means not knowing (in particular, not knowing what is true)!  It is correct that “The Didache” speaks about “the gospel” in its mentioned passages. However, the inference that hereby the chronicle imputed to Matthew (Christians’ cant: „The Gospel of Matthew“) is clued is nothing but ridiculous.

 

·                      Firstly, the chronicle (Christians’ cant: “gospel”) of Matthew that circulate about the change from the first to the second century is another one from that what later became canonized.[5] It is similar to the chronicle (Christians’ cant: “gospel”) of Barnabas. Here, Christian “theologians” claim that the today known “Gospel of Barnabas” is not that one that was banned by the “Decretum Gelasianum” at the end of the 5th century.

·                      Secondly, the premise of this allegation one only can call a wish.

·                      Thirdly, this German “theologian” obviously believes that the notion of “gospel” (Evangelium) was coined by authors, who wrote chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) about purportedly crucified and allegedly ascended to heaven Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”), i.e.,  he fancies that the notion of “gospel” (Evangelium) did not exist before those later canonized chronicles were written. That is ridiculous and unveils insufficient knowledge of Christian “New Testament”.  Ben-Pandera coined the concept of “gospels”.[6]  Everything else is ridiculous.  It would mean that first, there was the chronicle ("gospel") of Matthew and afterwards the preaching of Ben-Pandera ("Jesus Christ"), i.e. Ben-Pandera indirectly is accused having cribbed from Matthew... More over, does the author of the chronicle of Mark refer to “Matthew” when speaking about the “gospel”? Does the author of the “gospel of Luke” refer to “Matthew” when using the concept of “gospel”? As we already pointed out, by this concept (of "gospel")  Ben-Pandera obviously wanted reject suspicion illicitly adding something to the Bible (Christians’ cant: “Old Testament”)[7] according to (De 4:2, De 12:32 and Pr 30:6).[8]

·                      Fourthly, even when the boss and death penalty convict after his stunt of “crucifixion” sneaked off, his henchmen regarded his  words as “gospel” and therefore continued preaching the “gospel”, although nothing was set down to paper, yet (see:  Ac 5:42, Ac 8:25, Ac 8:35, Ac 8:40, Ac 11:20, Ac 14:7 etc.).

 

  More over, “The Didache” is much more similar to “The Gospel of Thomas”, since it is no chronicle (biography) of Ben-Pandera but a collection of his sayings. In fact, it neither clues to the chronicle ("gospel") that is imputed to Matthew nor to that one that is insinuated to Thomas since this Church Order evidently is earlier to both. However, that what is astonishing is the view of a Christian “theologian” that talking about a “gospel” means the existence of written scriptures that are called "gospels", at best already canonized by Christian sect.  I.e., the mentioned fallacy comes into being since Christian “theologians” of today deem that a "gospel" must be committed to paper. One can also put it that way:  they think that what is not written is no gospel.  Then there is no “gospel” at all in Christian sect since for Ben-Pandera, for the Acts of the Apostles and early Christians, there is only one "gospel" and that is only an oral one: the spoken words of Jesus (the death penalty convict). The spoken words of Jesus (the death penalty convict) -- but not written chronicles --   are that what Jesus and the people in his flock call "the gospel". Also, the even canonized chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) prove that. However, the mistake of Schnelle does not grow on trees.  Here, he is making the Freudian slip.  Later and contemporary Christian “theology” regards as "gospels" primarily those written chronicles that are passed off as “authentic” ones.  They firstly are fabricated corresponding Christians’ bigwigs (Christians’ cant: “good shepherds”) lust for power and that what the latter deemed to be necessary for that and secondly the (written) recorded sayings of Jesus (the death penalty convict). However, on the contrary it is to question if those fabrications according to a scheme we already pointed out in e901 can be called "gospels" since they are  (faked) biographies and therefore we speak about chronicles. Ben-Pandera never taught chronicles like those ones the Christians impute to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

It is to assume that the authors of the Didache had the notion of the “gospel” Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) had since chronicles as “gospels” did not exist, then.

 

Let us look at some passages of those we already named as annotation:

 

Mt 4:23 (NKJV)

23 ¶ And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. [9]

 

According to the logic of the last mentioned “theologian” the “Gospel of Matthew” already existed at the start of Ben-Pandera’s (the death penalty convict’s) career as itinerant preacher, and he preached or lectured “The Gospel of Matthew”… This would mean that first was the “gospel of Matthew” and afterwards its citation by Jesus (the death penalty convict)…

 

Mt 24:14 NJKV

14  "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

 

 

According to the “logic” of the mentioned theologian this would mean that Ben-Pandera (the death penalty convict) here says that the “gospel” of Matthew -- that did not exist, yet – would be preached in the world.  Here, it is evident that the spoken words of Jesus (the death penalty convict) – the spoken ones – are the “gospel”. This means that scriptures only can claim to be “gospels” inasmuch as they recorded.

 

Comprehension of the “gospel” changed by the interpolation of parts from Mithras religion about the birth of Mithras the Christians without further ado superimposed on Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and the fairy tale about Ben-Pandera's “vicarious suffering” as “innocent lamb of god”. Since Ben-Pandera  does not mention something about an astrologically announced  “immaculate birth”, those claims do not refer to him as source. On the other hand, the canonized "chronicles" conceal that Jesus   was confident to win his sedition to  become “King of Israel”, on Palm-Sunday (see: Joh 12:13).  However, his wretched defeat on Palm Sunday and his ignominy as death penalty convict was to spin-doctor and to cant.  Christians obviously did it corresponding to the slogan of desperadoes: the more exaggerated, e.g. faked as “god”, “son of god” etc., the less people will dare to  express the shame on their “prophet”… The Didache does not know the just mentioned  fakes (“notions”) since they obviously were contrived, respectively, cribbed from Mithras religion as reaction of the Jews’ contempt for the death penalty convict that so gladly desired  to be their king and "god" boasting to reconstruct a destroyed Jerusalem Temple within in few days but being unable get down alive from the gallows or cross…

Consequently, a few decades later, Christians called something a “gospel” that firstly Ben-Pandera rightly did not call a “gospel”. One can put it also that way: Today, Christians’ notion of “gospel” is not to reconcile with that one of their “god” (Ben-Pandera) to which they refer for shamming correctness.

To cut a long story short: As long as Ben-Pandera “officially” lived, this notion (of “gospel) implies collections of Ben-Pandera’s sayings, i.e.  the words or blather and baloney of his. In so far, the “gospel” imputed to Thomas and called to be apocryphal corresponds much more to Ben-Pandera’s concept of “gospel” than the canonized do. Later, the Christians vitiated Jesus' concept of “gospel” as a chronicle (biography) of Ben-Pandera’s life or that what the Christian pass off as his biography. That is why we do not call those fabrications “gospels” but chronicles.

However, if the Christians wanted each "gospel" to comply with this structure of a chronicle, they only could use the chronicles imputed to Matthew and Luke.  Omitting plagiarism from Mithras religion about the “birth” of Ben-Pandera means that the authors of the chronicle of Mark and John did not want to drive lies and deceits that far or perhaps confined themselves to lies they deem to be necessary and therefore rejected those they deemed as superfluous ones.  Otherwise, concealing such earthshaking intervention of “god” in world history would be lying by omitting. Therefore, “Mark” and “John” belie “Matthew” and “Luke”.

Here we often emphasize that even mistakes do not grow on trees but have their premises, possibilities and consequences. As demonstrated,  the  mistake that a (Christian) “gospel” only can be an already existing scripture reveals much more than those who utter that fallacy presume.

 

 “The Didache” refers to oral tradition of Ben-Pandera.

 

 

“Do not in any way forsake the commandments of the Lord; but keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom.” (Did 4:17-18)

 

 

Here, the Didache refers to De 4:2, De 12:32 and Pr 30:6 prohibiting any annexes to the Bible (Christians’ cant: “Old Testament”). One can understand this as a commandment to refrain from adding something to the Bible (Christians’ cant: “Old Testament”) as Christians finally perpetrated by addition four chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) and 23 other letters or books. Perhaps already at that time there was a discussion among more moderate Christians and extremists, if one should do so or not.  Finally, the “gospels” became committed to paper with the intention to add it to the Bible (Christians’ cant: Old Testament).  Among criminals, mostly the extremists win. Anyway, since the authors of the Didache emphasize that the Christians should nothing add or take away from god’s word, it is to infer that this scripture was written at a time, in which no (written) chronicles -- i.e. no illicit Christian annexes to the Bible -- circulated, yet.

 

As long as the very early Christians speak about “His Gospel” as done in the Didache --  further abbreviated as Did -- (8:2) or of the  “Gospel of our Lord” (Did 15:7) it is evident  that at that time there only was one “gospel”: the oral one of Jesus (the death penalty convict).  As demonstrated, the Didache refers to Bible ("Old Testament") passages forbidding annexes to it. Already for this reason, it is to infer that the Didache refers only to the oral tradition of Ben-Pandera.  Nothing else  early Christians could do when gathering in the Jerusalem Temple to preach the "gospel", immediately after Ben-Pandera's disappearance from the view (see:  Ac 5:42, Ac 8:25, Ac 8:35, Ac 8:40, Ac 11:20, Ac 14:7 etc.).  It is not to assume that they first  looked for Matthew ordering him: Hey, Matthew, please give us a "gospel", otherwise we do not know what "gospel" to preach...

 

That is why we also do not agree with the speculation that  the “Didache bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event” (Draper). The Didache provides evidence that at the time of its original composition, there were no written "gospels" at all and therefore only one: the oral one of Jesus (the death penalty convict). Today, Christians do so as if there is no prohibition of adding something to the Bible and therefore do not understand that the early Christians had scruples to do something an opponent easily could convict them of blasphemy.  More over, transgressing the laws of the prophets could be punished by death penalty.

 

Heb  10:28 NRSV

28  Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy "on the testimony of two or three witnesses."

 

Here, Heb 10:28 correctly refers to De 17:6. Thus, for early Christians it was not harmless to counteract commandments of the Bible (Christians’ cant: “Old Testament”).

 

Therefore, at that time there was no question about what "gospel" one is talking  if talking about the “Gospel of our Lord” (Did ibid.). The “authority of the one great Gospel” (Schnelle) to the very early Christians is the oral one that was spoken by Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”).

 

Presuming the chronicle imputed to Matthew or any other “canonized” one as the mentioned "gospel" in the Didache is even more ridiculous since it contradicts  that what Christians later pass off as “inerrant” and “absolutely true” “god’s word”. 

 

Each child in Sunday schools of today learns that Jesus (the death penalty convict) was “son of god”.  This presents one pillar, if not as the most important one of Christian credo.  Each of the canonized chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) styles Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) in that way, otherwise later Christians Never would have canonized them but called them “apocryphal” or the “non-authentic”.  .

 

 “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” demonstrates that the fake of Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) as "god's son" is a later fabrication introduced in Christian sect when Christian extremists and terrorists prevailed. However, this was not the case, in the beginning of this sect. Insofar, one can state that the very early Christians were not those foul mouths as those after the victory of the terrorists. The "gospel" to which the Didache refers says that the “Son of god” is the world deceiver:

 

 

“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.”(Did 16:6-10)

 

 

Hereby, the early Christian community is the evidence that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) obviously is a Muslim but no Christian. According to the Koran, on doomsday Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) will witness against the Christians that he never made himself "god" and will care for all the Christians going to hell.

 

Koran, Su 4:159

159  And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him (Jesus) before his death; and on the Day of Judgement he (Jesus) will be a witness against them (the Christians that he made himself “god”);

 

 

This is confirmed by the very, very early Christian tradition before it became forged, adulterated and tampered with Christian villains' lust for power by stopping at nothing, even not by faking a “god” of their own.

 

By the way, this very, very early scripture conspicuously calls Jesus (the death penalty convict) neither Messiah (Greek: Christos), nor “son of god” nor “god” but just the "servant" PaiV  of God (see: Did 9:3, 9:6, 10:2, 10:5).

 

A.D. Howell-Smith writes regarding the Didache (Jesus Not a Myth, p. 120):

“The simple Christology of Acts confronts us again in the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, a composite work, of which 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. The Jesus mentioned in this book's account of the celebration of the Eucharist is just the "Servant" (Παις) of God, who has made known the "holy vine" of God's "Servant" David; nothing is said of the bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus. The formula of baptism in the name of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Martyr, who is familiar with it.”[10]

 

 Many Christian translators translate the Greek notion of Παις, which means “servant” as “son” of god in order to pretend that the early Christians regarded Jesus as “son of God” what the Didache confutes. Remarkably for those Christian translators Christianity makes no sense without Jesus as “god” or “god’s son”… In order to pretend Jesus as “god” Christians insidiously and falsely want to give the impression that Jesus was regarded as “God” or “son of God” by his contemporary adherents, in particular, by his “disciples”… Those translators repress the truths that Jesus as “son of God” is a later idea disseminated by Paul, who obviously is in opposition with those who are eyewitnesses of Jesus’ preaching. Therefore, they deceitfully translate "Servant" (Παις) as god. This translation already turns out to be misleading since Jesus in the Didache is put on the same level as David: as servants of God.

 

This is another evidence that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and his very early "apostles" are Muslims and no Christians. Servant of god or prophet of god that is how Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) is called in the Koran and this corresponds to the very early sources of Christianity. There is nothing to find in the Didache that contradicts the Koran but all Christian doctrines of today about Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) are confuted here as the Koran refutes them.

 

The one that appears as “Son of God” perpetrating all signs of sorcery (Christians’ cant: “wonders”) is the world-deceiver. What honest and truthful one ever could object to the early Christians…?  What else says the Koran? The world-deceiver does “iniquitous things which never yet come to pass since the beginning”  of the world (Did 16:10), e.g.

 

·  having suffered death penalty not for the vices and felonies of his but for the ones of those addressing and worshipping him as “Son of God” or

·  that even fakes “having risen from the dead” or even

·  “having ascended to heaven”, although only hell holds a place for the world-deceiver!

 

 Who doubts? The best objections against the world-deceiver, i.e. Christian fake of Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) one can find in the Christians’ own scriptures and the Koran.  One just has to read them… Who wonders that Christian sect forbade the Bible to its victims (Christians’ cant: “sheep”)? Provided there is honesty and sincerity, the only miracle in Christian organized crime is the fact how reason, the Koran and this early Christian scriptures consent.  That means, here is recorded that what Christians, i.e. religious Mafiosi with will to power (Christians’ cant: potestas ligandi and et solvendi), believed.  This mean further that “deification” of Jesus (the death penalty convict), viz, declaring the latter to be “god” or “god’s son”  was a later development for reasons we are going to point out, below.  Hence, the difference between reason and faith -- the followers of the sect of perfidy (Christians) are used to claming -- does not exist. Demonstrably faith, if Jewish, Islamic or even the very early Christian one, do not condemn less the “Son of God” as world-deceiver as reason does.

 

Now, we can measure how much the Christians fear losing the mask of liars and deceivers when even making themselves a laughing-stock, e. g.  when purporting that a scripture (Didache) refers to a canonized chronicle (imputed to Matthew) that concocts packs of lies for styling Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) as "son of god",  which the  Didache directly and verbatim calls the  world deceiver... [11]   

 

 Here, in the very early scripture Jesus (the death penalty convict) like David is called as “servant of god” (Did 9:3).  According to logic: ominis determinatio est negatio (each definition also is a negation) this also means that here it is confirmed that what Christians later regarded as blasphemy.

That fact that Jesus (the death penalty convict) is just named the "servant" PaiV  of God in this scripture does not mean that the Christian victims (Christians’ cant: “sheep”) are informed that way. As it is habit since German desperado Martin L.  when Protestant sect made propaganda for its community allowing its victims (Christians’ cant: “sheep”) to read the Bible, the Christian deceivers helped themselves by translating wrongly embarrassing or debunking passages. For instance, the mentioned German desperado blurred and darkened the term eunuch (see: Mt 19:12) that as well exists in Latin (eunuchus), German (Eunuch) as in English (eunuch) by translating it with “verschnitten”. That means: “cut ”. 

 

Hereby, the Protestants play down if not hide that they palm a sect off as utmost excellence favoring “eunuch” as model for human beings.  Eunuch as model for human beings … do not make me laugh! Only creeps n’ crooks are able to contrive that! Generally, Christian “New Testament's” translators of today translate the notion of son (Latin: filius) by child (see, for instance, Mt 5:9). Hereby, they do not want to make clear to their victims (Christians’ cant: “sheep”) that women do not count anything to “eunuch” Jesus (the death penalty convict).  Especially if it is about execution of the death penalty convict by crucifixion,  misguiding translations are a matter of course. Pertaining to the Didache, most national translators, whether English or of other nationalities ones mostly mislead their readers by wrongly translating the Greek notion of PaiV  (servant) of god with “son” of god (e.g. J. B. Lightfoot) or even by “child” (e.g. Kirsopp Lake).  Christian lie that calling Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) servant or “son” of god would be the same. Firstly, this precisely is the difference between Christianity and Islam and secondly  calling Ben-Pandera “servant  of god” excludes any interference that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) is equal or a peer to god. That is what the Christians lie by “confusing” the concepts of servant and son.  Therefore, we predominately refer to the translation of Roberts-Donaldson cleaving to the truths, viz, to a correct translation[12].  However, even to Christian shrewd deceivers’ hairsplitting is put a stop in the Didache since Jesus (the death penalty convict) is ranked to the same level with human being David:

 

 

“We (early Christians) thank thee (god), our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant…” (Did 9:3)

 

 

Already putting David and Jesus (the death penalty convict) at the same level as “servants” of god is indirect but conclusive evidence that Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) is rejected as “god” by the early "apostles" and believers of Christian sect! However, this is not the only embarrassing things the Didache belies and unveils Christian megalomania about Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”), today. Jesus – the death penalty convict – does not reveal god but the prophets, for instance, David.   In the Didache  Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) is not only lower ranked than god but also than  King David likewise somebody explaining god is lower to god.

 

More over, the Christian censors failed to see that they hereby give the lie to their “authentic chronicles” regarding another aspect: The Jews never would have allow somebody to use their synagogues[13] whom they allegedly wanted to kill, twenty-four hours the day as Christian "gospels" lie. That is what Christian chronicles (Christians’ cant: “gospels”) impute to the Pharisees by utmost obsession of “love” to hatred hardly to outdo!  The Jews granted tolerance to this small organized crime (Jesus’ sect), this organized crime (Christianity) never granted to its adversaries or enemies, in the least! 

 

The most interesting thing about very early Christian Church’s Order is that “enlightenment (of) ethics made much more sense than the (idolatry to) worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.”[14] The latter quotation demonstrates either how much Christians are robotized to believe in lies or how they insidiously lie.  The lies of Christians firstly about  a crucified Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”) and secondly of a “risen son of god” are that robotized so that the Christians even do not notice when authentic and very, very early Christian scriptures, oh yeah, even Church Orders --  i.e. not only the one or other Christian “theologian” --  contradict, respectively, confute them…  How can one say that the Didache indirectly accepts a “risen son of god” if the Didache warns us that the world-deceiver appears as Son of God (Did 16:8)? Here, a “son of god” is  not only forgotten, ignored or neglected. “A risen son of god” is condemned and accursed as son of Satan or  Christ (English: Anointed One) of Satan! However, Christians cannot but lying and deceiving. Even if there is written

 

“…the world-deceiver {shall appear} as a son of God;” (Did 16:8)

 

they nevertheless “avoid knowing what is true”[15] that Jesus is rejected, condemned and accursed as "son of god". The just quoted interpretation of a Christian would mean that the early Christian deliberately believe in somebody, they knew to be the world-deceiver!  This might be a matter of course for that faking “martyrs of the truths”, i.e. Christians of today, but not for the “"apostles"” of the flock of Ben-Pandera (Christians’ cant: Jesus “Christ”). Christian bishops of today claim to be the successors of these "apostles" that made the Didache. This succession is  sheer lie and deceit since those „successors“, i.e. the later and contemporary bishops, believe in somebody the real disciples call world-deceiver. The successors of the Christian "apostles" are the Muslims. They keep that credo about Jesus the original "apostles" had.

 

Putting it mildly in favor of Christian sect, one can say that Christianity originally started as a sect of "moral" teachings, respectively, what it deemed as such and ended up as a criminal idolatry making a "god"  and "morals" of its own to become unassailable foul mouth and foul play, i.e. an almost perfect crime while faking a "religion". 

 

Not very unlike to Manichaeism, the early Christian preached a “way of life”, on the one hand and another one of “death”, on the other (see: Did 1:1.  There is “a great difference between the two ways” (ibid.). People have to decide which one they want to  follow.  Very early Christianity tried to succeed as religion without the abominable lies and deceits about

 

  • “vicarious atonement”,
  • “innocent lamb of god suffering for the sins of others”,
  •  Eucharist as cannibalism and even without the
  • fake ob Ben-Pandera's “resurrection from the dead”.<