[RnMomof7]

Did you read it and the commentary? Commentary contains why Swett thinks it is 49 AD and not later, and 49 AD is first century.

Written of course by ROME ..LOL

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

The Didache, an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community,
http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

“contains human error...:” if this, contains human error, how do you justify the other books of the New Testament?

..THIS IS NOT THE NEW TESTAMENT ..it is an interesting read on the formation of the church..nothing more.. just like your kids history book is not INFALLIBLE' neither is this .... If someone does not understand that scripture is the word of God and this book is the word of man there is nothing any Christian can do to explain it.. because it is spiritually discerned

Surely not acceptable because the Catholics chose them in the mid-300s?

No the early church chose them.. and there was no Roman Catholic church then ...and BTW Rome did not have a canon of closed scripture until Trent.. so if this was "inspired" writings they could have added it like they did the others

[GreyFriar]

I’m just taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion. And what makes the early church more or less infallible than the post-300 AD Catholic church. those were just men and women who did the choosing. And if the Didache had been chosen, then your argument against it fails.

[GreyFriar]

And I am still asking you: Did you actually read the Didache link I posted? And, if so, did you consider the commentator’s reasons for concluding it was written around 49AD?