What you believe doesn’t really matter. The fact is:
Because I wish to comply to forum rules, I cannot make a definite statement. Saying “POV” is neutral & non-threatening.
You are right it doesn’t matter what any non-inspired writer “believes” in this matter:
I understand most scholars disagree with you. It was either another deity or a god meant to replace Moses. Plus every translation I looked at, including the Orthodox Jewish Bible translates Exodus 32: “These are your gods,"
He didn’t mention all the other commandments either.
So, you agree with De_Maria that it doesn’t matter what any non-inspired writer believes, then give your OWN interpretation of Romans as if you are inspired, even though you stated in a previous thread you are not a scholar.
I don’t see him teaching about the difference between one form of coveting and another. It is in your mind that he is saying that coveting a neighbor’s wife is the same as coveting a neighbor’s goods.
Still, no teaching there saying that a woman is a possession the same as any other thing in a man’s house.
Correct. One should not covet a man’s wife nor a man’s goods. That doesn’t mean that they are one commandment. The offense is much different to covet a man’s wife, is adultery in the heart. They are a different nature of offense.
Yeah, so what? I can throw one blanket on a man and a woman and a toy. It covers all of them but does not make them the same thing.
Again, he makes no statement about the difference between a woman and an ox. But, he never says about an ox:
What about when God commanded the Israelites to engrave to images of cherubim? Did God command them to sin?
The specific Hebrew word for “god” (or “gods”) in Exodus 32 is 'elohiym which is used to describe the plurality of God in Genesis 1 when 'elowahh says, “Let US make man in our image.” The key to understanding the passage is in Exodus 32:4, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 'Elohiym is the plural of 'elowahh which is also used to refer to the God of Genesis 1. This is why some commentators believe the translation should be “gods” because of the plurality of 'elowahh but they miss it is the Hebrew word to describe the God of Israel Who has this plurality. The “God” Who brought them out of the land of Egypt was this same God of Genesis 1. The golden calf was a blasphemous “graven image” of the real God which “cannot be seen.”
The image of the bronze snake was not an image of God, neither were the cherubim. They were angels. Plus, like you said, these were commands from God to make them. There was no “command” from God for the Israelites to make a graven image of Him, nor a command to the church to do so.
But if you read the 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy 5, it states these commandments were given to the nation of ISRAEL, not the church. The church is not Israel. It is a separate spiritual entity, since the church is not bound by the laws of Moses, including the ceremonial laws, which were part of it because Jesus “fulfilled” the Law.
I’m afraid you conflated the Law given through Moses to Israel, with “grace & truth” realized through Jesus Christ to the church. When He gave the Law to Israel, it was strictly for THEM to follow, not the church. And when Paul cited these commandments, he simply cited “do not covet”…period.
Doesn’t matter. Paul simply saying “do not covet” is addressing the command to not covet. He doesn’t specify “who” or “what” to covet. Again, “do not covet” covers everything that belongs to the man (or woman).
So, you agree with De_Maria that it doesn’t matter what any non-inspired writer believes, then give your OWN interpretation of Romans as if you are inspired, even though you stated in a previous thread you are not a scholar.
Yes, @RaisedCatholic, has a very protestant POV. Most important to know is that what @RaisedCatholic is saying in his posts is not Church teaching
Again, not equating women with property. That is a misunderstanding of what I said, & what the text is saying. Since husbands & wives are cleaved to each other as ONE FLESH, they belong to each other and cannot be divided. Therefore, coveting a husband’s wife is just as sinful as coveting his possessions which also belong to him. Again, not talking about ownership, but what belongs to the man (and woman).
But if the woman & the toy belong to the man, it is sinful to covet both of them, because both of them belong to the man.
Addressed above.
In Exodus 32:4 it states, “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” The “God” Who brought Israel out of Egypt was the God of Genesis 1, which Israel was obviously aware of “Who” He was, not a pagan Egyptian false god. Their idolatry was making a graven image of Him, which is why they were executed. So, by merging the First Commandment about not worshiping any other gods, with the Second about not making graven images, you end up with 9 Commandments instead of 10. Therefore, the 10th Commandment about not coveting which Paul cites as a single commandment (Romans 7:7), must be “split” into two separate commandments to make 10.
Lutherans consider themselves to be “reformed Catholics,” as did Luther. He never considered himself a “Lutheran,” but a devoted Catholic. So, you would expect Lutherans, as well as other early groups to come out of Reformation, to adhere to many of the same “traditions” as their Catholic counterparts.
Women are not men’s property. Are you united to your car or your house as one flesh?
On the contrary, we are giving the Catholic Teaching. You are giving your personal point of view.So, you agree with De_Maria that it doesn’t matter what any non-inspired writer believes, then give your OWN interpretation of Romans as if you are inspired, even though you stated in a previous thread you are not a scholar.
Yes, you are. You said so, above.
People are not property.
How can it be “just as sinful” when it is obviously on a higher order of offense to covet a person than to covet a thing.
What belongs to the man and woman, are things. When a thing is stolen from a household, it is an offense against the man and woman who own that thing.
But not to the same degree. It is not a mortal sin to steal a mechanical rabbit. It is a mortal sin to steal a man’s wife.
No, you didn’t. Did God command man to sin when He commanded them to make images of cherubim? Yes or no will suffice.
And you are conflating a wife with inanimate belongings. A wife is a soul made in God’s image. A different order of being than an animal or a thing.
Well, no sense haggling with you over the greater importance of a woman over things. The fact is that no one, NO ONE, had numbered the Commandments until the Catholic Church did so.
It must be so bad, that you’re ashamed to repeat it.
When I said I am not a scholar, I was being humble & honest, and neither is anyone else here either. And as far as why I believe, since this is a Catholic forum, I cannot say things like “because Scripture based on the Hebrew in the OT & Greek in the NT supports what I am saying,” since that could be misconstrued as “challenging Catholic teaching,” which I don’t have a desire to do. As we have discussed before, non-Catholics are at a HUGE disadvantage here, because they cannot make definitive statements like Catholics can without violating forum rules. So, I can only respond with objective statements & meanings of words from the original languages we all can agree on.You agree with De_Maria that it doesn’t matter what any non-inspired writer believes, then give your OWN interpretation of Scripture as if you are the inspired one, even though you stated in a previous thread you are not a scholar.
In all charity, where did you get your authority and why does it differ from other protestants? Do you believe that you are the one inspired to interpret scripture correctly against what others say?
Most important to know is that what @RaisedCatholic is saying in his posts is not Church teaching, though it sounds authoritative. No one has authority to personally interpret Scripture, only the Catholic church has the authority to interpret Scripture.
No, because I never even inferred that a wife is at the same level of inanimate belongings. Saying a wife “belongs” to her husband (and vice versa) is based on Song of Songs:
@RaisedCatholic, I certainly appreciate the effort you have put in in this discussion. I have been on both sides of the fence on this forum. Could I offer a few things?
The issue isn’t so much over whether there are actually “10” commandments, but how specific ones are grouped or separated which changes the intent of the commandment. For instance, by merging what Protestants call the “First” and “Second” Commandments into one, then it sounds like God is only commanding not to make graven images of false gods, but graven images of the invisible God of Israel is acceptable. But the Israelites creating something they “think” represents God, again Who is invisible, is the definition of idolatry. But by separating them into two distinct commandments, the Israelites understood not only should they not worship false gods, but also not worship an image of the real God Who brought them out of Israel. This is what they did - and said - when they created the molten calf, and they got killed for it. And as far as the last Commandment about not coveting, if it is broken down into two separate commandments, that overlooks the fact when later the apostle Paul referred back to the Commandments and simply said “you shall not covet,” not “you shall not covet ‘X’.” The fact Paul was not more specific, demonstrates he understood “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife AND his property” as one single commandment to “do not covet.” Had Paul viewed them as separate commandments, he would have specified which one. But BOTH times in Romans, he only says “do not covet”…period.
Which is why I referenced Song of Songs (“I am my beloved and my beloved is mine”). That Tenth Commandment applies to the husband belonging to his wife too.
Now, perhaps it is just the commentaries I use (I tend to prefer academic commentaries over doctrinal ones), but I do not recall in any commentary on Romans that I have read that there was any indication of a belief that Paul meant to say “You shall not covet” was the specific form of the commandment over against “You shall not covet your neighbor’s spouse” and “you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods”.
Considering the bull is a common cultic image in many ancient Near Eastern religions, I seriously doubt it can be said with any certainty that the Israelites thought the bull was only a representation of the true God. It is rather more likely that they were claiming some pagan divinity as their God.
I’m sorry if that sounded or came across uncharitable. I did not mean it that way.
I dont understand the advantage part. It is not about proving who is right or wrong or who knows Scripture best but knowing what is true. Again for a Catholic the only definitive, true statement would come from the Church.