A
angel12
Guest
You can call it whatever you want, that doesn`t change the facts. Ex is ex. Protestant is Protestant. That’s your right, but don’t expect people here to suddenly follow you instead of the Church.
.
- Status
.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
As noted at about post 88, the reason they are divided the way they are, is because St. Augustine, Doctor of the Catholic Church, saw that man coveted differently in diffrent situations.
A man covets for another man’s possessions for material purposes, for greed but a man covets another man’s wife for lust or for sexual pleasure.
The Catechism of Trent states that they approved St. Augustines division of the commandments. Nothing was forced, nor did it have anything to do with graven images. Commandment 1 still states to have no other gods and to not worship idols. It isn’t about the making of images but making the images idols.
Also, commandments 9 & 10 correlate with commandments 6 & 7, kind of expounding on them.
Again, please see around post 88.
God bless
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
In Biblical Hebrew the same word means slave or servant. There is also an issue with translations of Elohim. To the poster attempting to translate this as a plural of another word. Elohim means god, gods, God. This word is singular and plural.
El means God, god. This word is singular. The word translated as Eloheyha has certain grammatical forms, I won’t go into given the basics are not well understood here.
There are quite a few words for God or gods in the Old Testament. HaShem, Adonai, LORD.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
That has never been the desire of any Reformed Catholic, nor any other “Protestant,” nor is it mine. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of the Reformation, which was to follow Christ through His God-breathed Word, not them. Luther even hated the term “Lutheran,” because he didn’t want people following him. He preferred being called “Christian,” because it means to follow Christ.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Although the plural “Elohiym” in Hebrew can have multiple meanings in the Hebrew, so can the singular “el’” & “elowahh.” They, too, can refer to false “gods,” not just the One True God of Israel. Elohiym is used in Genesis 1 & elsewhere in the NT, to describe the pluralistic nature of God (“Let US make man in OUR own image” / “Let US go down & confuse the language”), which we know now through the NT describes the Trinity, or Triune God - One God, three distinct “Persons” of the Godhead.
While there are different Hebrew words for “servant,” the specific Hebrew word 'ebed is translated into the Greek “doulos” as “slave” over 400 times. This is the same Greek word used in the NT to describe a slave, not a servant. Again, there are different Hebrew & Greek words for servant, and 'ebed & doulos are not among them.
The difference is a servant retains his independent status. A slave is owned & are deemed property.
No, and that was never my argument. See my recent post to @Gorgias in the next post #110 below. By loving your neighbor as yourself, you will not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21), which includes not only his wife, but also his property (house, field, slaves, animals, etc.)
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
How exactly is labor a “possession”??? Labor isn’t a “thing” or a person that can be owned. It is something a person or animal does. Plus, slaves were bought & sold, not their “labor,” but for their labor. And all the year of Jubilee did was free them from their slave bondage to their master. IOW, they were still owned by their master. They couldn’t leave on their own, which is why Paul sent the slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon.
But that doesn’t solve the problem (“going from stuff to people to stuff”), because what is the 9th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 if it goes from “stuff” (house) to “people” (wife, slaves) to “stuff” (animals), if the spouse if “materially different than coveting anything else”? Remember, the 9th Commandment of “do not covet your wife” is supposed to be based on Deuteronomy 5:21a, & the 10th Commandment of "do not covet your neighbors goods (“property”) is based on Deuteronomy 5:21b which includes his house, his field, his male slave, his female slave, his ox or his donkey.
So, using “the Catholic answer” that “coveting a covenanted spouse is materially different than coveting anything else, and so it stands apart,” that would omit male & female slaves, which would be as much “property” as a house, field, ox, or donkey, since “do not covet your neighbor’s wife” is allegedly a separate “do not covet” commandment.
Every other list of the “10” Commandments are identical in their order in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5, except the last (alleged) two. Here is the difference:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)
"‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.’ (Deuteronomy 5:21)
Notice, “your neighbor’s wife” & “your neighbor’s house” are reversed. So, how exactly is "do not covet your neighbor’s wife a separate commandment in Exodus 20:17? The consistent answer is found at the end of both verses “or anything that belongs to your neighbor,” which Jesus & Paul reiterates as “loving your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9) - ie: ONE Commandment - “you shall not covet.”
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Absolutely true. St. Augustine saw that there was a difference in coveting things for greed versus coveting another man’s wife for lust.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
If you love your neighbor as yourself, there is no need for the other 10 Commandments. As Jesus said:
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
But the Law is not for the righteous. It is for sinners.
1 Timothy 1:9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
THEREFORE, everything had to be specifically laid out. And these two commandments are separate because of the fact that there is a quantum difference between a wife and a donkey.
And that is the Teaching of the infallible Catholic Church, whether you like it or not.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
When Jesus was asked this, He began by stating the FIRST & GREATEST Commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, & strength. This covers the first “half” of the commandments that focus on God. When He said the SECOND is like it, “love your neighbor as yourself,” he was covering the second "half’ of the commandments that focus on your neighbor “you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, etc.” Then he says the same thing Paul does, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9). When Paul uses it, he uses it tandem with “you shall not COVET”:
"For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Notice, he lists all the other “you shall not” that affects your relationship with your neighbor, but not the ones that affect your relationship with God. Notice, how Paul lists all the other ones individually, but he simply says “you shall not covet,” not “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” AND “you shall not covet your neighbor’s possessions.” He simply says “you shall not covet”…period, indicating it is ONE commandment, not two.
And your reply still didn’t answer my question about why Exodus 20:17 “lumps” your neighbor’s wife IN-BETWEEN your neighbor’s possessions, if "you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife is supposed to be a separate commandment. Try again.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Yes and 1 Corinthians 6:18 instructs us to flee from sexual immorality because every other sin committed is a sin outside the body but a sexual sin, one such as coveting another man’s wife would be as St. Paul continues to say, a sin against their own body and our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.
That would definitely be different than coveting his house or his donkey.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
Why? I think you understand the Catholic Teaching. You refuse to accept it. I’m fine with that.
A
angel12
Guest
You might want to actually read my post. I clearly was talking about individuals, not “the purpose of the Reformation.”
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
This was the end of your quote:
Considering the Reformers were also “ex-Catholics,” Protestants follow the same 5 solas they did, which they believed in supported by Scripture, which includes sola scriptura, not “sola Protestant.” The latter would imply following a particular Reformer. The former means following Scripture. So, when you are addressing ex-Catholics & other Protestants individually, you are addressing the “purpose of the Reformation.”
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
D
De_Maria
Guest
I understand what you’re saying. I refuse to accept it. Here, I tell you what. You are saying that you don’t agree with these two Commandments being separated. You want them to be one.
I’m saying I agree with those two Commandments being two Commandments.
Is that a fair summation?
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
I don’t think you quite understand my point. The Hebrew word you are referring to is עֶבֶד. This is the Hebrew word for slave , servant. The B is not a hard ‘b’. It is a soft ‘b’ so therefore it is pronounced v. The pronunciation is not ebed. The D is also not a hard D, it is a soft D. The correct pronunciation of this dalet is th.
The word is not ebed. The word is eveth with the accent on the first syllable. Hebrew words are usually accented on the last syllable.
Regardless of how this word is translated, it won’t change its Hebrew meaning.
Firstly the iy is a diphthong. So the word is Elohim. Not Elohiym. For a diphthong both letters are pronounced as one.
means god, gods, God. Thats it, that is what it means and should be translated as. For the correct translation or reading in Hebrew, the context must be known. Yes it can be multiple gods or the one true God. It does not mean the Trinity. Let us not go down that path.
AS regards to the word for slave, servant. To correctly understand this word in the Hebrew context, a knowledge of slave status within the family must be understood.
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
If twisting my meaning makes you feel better, you go right ahead. My post was clear, so it’s not my problem. There’s obviously no point in any further discussion with someone who needs to do that, so goodbye.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Sure it is. Folks buy and sell it all the time. It’s called a ‘contract’: you promise your labor over a certain period of time in exchange for something of value. (I’m not claiming that folks contracted in ancient Palestine like we do today, of course, but the notion holds up all the same.)
Nope, although if you have a citation to demonstrate that this is the case, I’d appreciate seeing it.
Leviticus is pretty clear on the matter:
According to you, though, this was only a temporary reprieve. Read a bit further in Leviticus:
One important note: we’re talking about Israelites here; those who are not under the Mosaic Law are not protected by its provisions in the same way that Israelites are.
So: Leviticus is pretty clear that the people of God are persons, not possessions. Your assertion about the commandment, in that light, doesn’t hold up – the commandments clearly go between persons and possessions.
It really does. Remember: your claim about “coveting” is that stuff and slaves were both ‘possessions’, and so breaking up the commandments doesn’t make sense if it means crossing that “line” back and forth. We’ve just seen that slaves are to be treated like people, so we do see that precise “back and forth” that you claim isn’t there. In other words, your argument justifying your take on the numbering of the commandments just doesn’t hold up to reason.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
What I was getting at, the Hebrew word עֶבֶד which is transliterated “`ebed” when translated into Greek is “δοῦλος” which is transliterated “slave” in English, rather than “servant,” & in the NT the context of “doulos” refers to a slave who is owned, not a servant who does a job & can quit. Again, there are other Greek words for “servant” in both the Septuagint & the NT.
The Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים is transliterated “'elohiym” into English, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Hebrew & Greek Concordance. Regardless, elohim / elohiym, despite all this, it PLURAL masculine noun, while can refer to pagan gods, also refers to the One True God of Israel. And I didn’t say “meant” Trinity. I said because it is used in Genesis to describe God as “Us” rather than “Me,” this plurality SUPPORTS the NT doctrine of the Trinity, because even back then, God in Hebrew was understood in a plurality, even if the concept of the Trinity wasn’t revealed back then, as it was in the NT.
Agreed, and since 'ebed in Hebrew is translated 'doulos in Greek, the understanding of the master-slave relationship in both the OT & NT is that the 'ebed / doulos / slave is owned by his master. This is why Jesus draws from this master / slave relationship, as a model of Master /slave relationship with those who worship Him & accept Him as Savior AND Lord (Master). He bought us with a price - His shed blood. And while a servant can serve two masters, a slave cannot, because a slave is only owned by one master at a time. Our master is either sin or Christ, but it can’t be both.
When the 10 Commandments lump man-slaves & female-slaves in with his other possessions, like house, field, & animals, this is demonstrating they are owned by their master, which can be bought & sold, which cannot be done with mere servants.
So, when Exodus 20:17 & the apostle Paul reiterates in Romans 13/9, “do not covet” it encompasses not coveting anything that belongs to your neighbor - his wife AND his possessions which include slaves.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Using a modern definition to try to understand a concept in antiquity is problematic to the exegesis of the text. Unlike in civilized societies today, societies in antiquity bought & sold people (ie: slaves). 1/3 of all citizens in the Roman Empire were slaves. Even Christians owned slaves in the first century. So did the Jews in the OT era. So, when I was challenging labor being a “possession” but not the person performing it, I was addressing antiquity, not civilized societies in the 21st Century in the West.
This command is specifically addressing kindred (countrymen), not others. God specifically addresses “buying” slaves:
"“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.” (Exodus 21:2)
The Hebrew word for “slave” ('ebed), which is “bought,” is the same word used earlier in Exodus 20:17 in the 10 Commandments:
"“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male slave ('ebed) or his female slave or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
God also states He brought Israel as “slaves” ('ebed) out from Egypt:
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves ('ebed).” (Exodus 20:2)
In light of my above more detailed explanation, from Scripture, hopefully we are on the same page. So, yes, people can be possessions, just that Israelites cannot be slaves of other Israelites. But since the church is not Israel, in the first century, it was not unusual for even Christians to own Christians (like Philemon owning Onesimus as a slave):
" I appeal to you [Philemon] for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment…no longer as a slave (doulos), but more than a slave (doulos), a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Philemon v.10,16)
- Status