C
crazzeto
Guest
Who, other than you, holds this view? Did a Rabbi tell you that?
- Status
G
geometer
Guest
Are you being serious?
J
juliamajor
Guest
Thank you for your kind and loving words
Peace
C
crazzeto
Guest
Yep, actually.
G
geometer
Guest
The first commandment does mean what I posted according to a Rabbi who explained it to me, he didn’t use the word savior, but they do believe that.
J
juliamajor
Guest
The order of the prohibitions against murder, adultery, and theft, as now given in the Masoretic text, in Josephus, and in the Syriac Hexapla, is not followed by the Septuagint, the Codex Alexandrinus, and Ambrosianus (which have “murder, theft, adultery”), nor by Philo (who has “adultery, murder, theft”), nor by the Codex Vaticanus (which reads adultery, theft, murder").
Differences obtain also in regard to the numbering of the various commandments. The traditional Jewish system makes Ex. xx. 2 the first “word,” and verses 3-6 are regarded as one; viz., the second (Mak. 24a; Mek., ed. Friedmann, p. 70b, Vienna, 1870; Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 106b, ib. 1880). This arrangement is found also in the Codex Vaticanus of the LXX. and in the Deuteronomy of Ambrosianus. Still R. Ishma’el counts verse 3 as the first “word” (Sifre to Num. xv. 31; ed. Friedmann, p. 33a, Vienna, 1864). Philo and Josephus count verse 3 as commandment i; verses 4-6 as ii.; verse 7 as iii.; verses 8-11 as iv.; verse 12 as v.; verse 13 as vi.; verse 14 as vii.; verse 15 as viii.; verse 16 as ix.; and verse 17 as x.
The numbering adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches combines verses 3-6 into a single commandment which is numbered i., in consequence of which, up to the last, every commandment is advanced by one, the Jewish No. III. becoming II., and so on. In order to maintain the number ten, the Jewish No. X. is divided into IX. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”) and X. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” etc.). This method of numbering is ascribed to Augustine (“quæst. 71 ad Exodum”), but the Codex Alexandrinus, as E. Nestle was the first to notice (“Theol. Studien aus Württemberg,” 1886, pp. 319 et seq.), also exhibits it. Modern critics are inclined to accept this latter system of enumeration, partly because the Jewish No. I. is not a “commandment,” in which they overlook the Hebrew designation (“word”), and partly because, as the Jewish enumeration has it, verses 3 and 4-6 certainly constitute one command
Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=192&letter=D#ixzz0VRWSbISS
Differences obtain also in regard to the numbering of the various commandments. The traditional Jewish system makes Ex. xx. 2 the first “word,” and verses 3-6 are regarded as one; viz., the second (Mak. 24a; Mek., ed. Friedmann, p. 70b, Vienna, 1870; Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 106b, ib. 1880). This arrangement is found also in the Codex Vaticanus of the LXX. and in the Deuteronomy of Ambrosianus. Still R. Ishma’el counts verse 3 as the first “word” (Sifre to Num. xv. 31; ed. Friedmann, p. 33a, Vienna, 1864). Philo and Josephus count verse 3 as commandment i; verses 4-6 as ii.; verse 7 as iii.; verses 8-11 as iv.; verse 12 as v.; verse 13 as vi.; verse 14 as vii.; verse 15 as viii.; verse 16 as ix.; and verse 17 as x.
The numbering adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches combines verses 3-6 into a single commandment which is numbered i., in consequence of which, up to the last, every commandment is advanced by one, the Jewish No. III. becoming II., and so on. In order to maintain the number ten, the Jewish No. X. is divided into IX. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”) and X. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” etc.). This method of numbering is ascribed to Augustine (“quæst. 71 ad Exodum”), but the Codex Alexandrinus, as E. Nestle was the first to notice (“Theol. Studien aus Württemberg,” 1886, pp. 319 et seq.), also exhibits it. Modern critics are inclined to accept this latter system of enumeration, partly because the Jewish No. I. is not a “commandment,” in which they overlook the Hebrew designation (“word”), and partly because, as the Jewish enumeration has it, verses 3 and 4-6 certainly constitute one command
Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=192&letter=D#ixzz0VRWSbISS
M
MonFrere
Guest
One could read this as the 10 WORDS to the House of Israel; i.e. the chosen people of the Old Covenant. These commandments are addressed specifically to them and not to all mankind. However, and this is a big however, the MORAL LAW BEHIND THEM is what is binding upon all of God creatures (all mankind).
The New Covenant changed A LOT OF THINGS. To Catholic theology the person of Christ is the absolute center of our attention (not the Bible, alla sola scriptura). One thing that changed, and Protestants don’t seem to have any difficulty with this point, is that the Sabbath was transferred from Saturday to Sunday. ALSO, because of the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God mankind now has an “icon of God” in the person of Jesus Christ. There was no such “icon” in the Old Testament and therefore the prohibition against idols and images had a profound logic to them. But, the Incarnation to Catholic theology really means something!! The ramifications of the Incarnation means that we now DO have an image of God, an “icon of God”. Therefore, the OT command against “images” can be altered so as to include icons of the icon of God. Just as the New Covenant Sabbath can be changed to highlight attention to the resurrection of Christ and the **true rest/Bt we experience through his marvelous act of redemption on the cross.
It is the MORAL LAW behind the commandments that is binding on all mankind. Idolatry is still in FULL FORCE. The command to worship God is still in FULL FORCE. The application of these commandments now has a new context because we live under a different covenant than did the Old Testament chosen people of God - the ancient Jews.
So, to my way of thinking all of these different numbering systems is superfluous because, as stated before, several times, the CCC comments and elaborates of EVERY PHRASE of the 10 WORDS given them the context of the New Covenant relationship that God has with His Church instead of the context of the Old Covenant relationship that God has with His chosen people.
MonFrere**
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I had never heard of that before, either. I assumed geometer was using a different translation of Scripture and actually meant Exodus 20:2-3 (but not verse 4) was the First Commandment (as many Protestants believe).
“Trusty” Wikipedia has a nice side-by-side table of the different numberings of the Ten Commandments. Apparently geometer is arguing for the Jewish numbering. Although, Wikipedia doesn’t list verse 1 as part of the Jewish numbering, only verse 2.
Geometer’s whole argument strikes me as quite disingenuous, though. Does geometer really believe that the Catholic Church rejects the idea that we should follow the words of God and recognize Him as our Savior? I don’t see how one could possibly support such an assertion.
Just look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Verse 2 is part of the First Commandment. (Verse 1 likely isn’t included simply because it’s not the actual words of God but merely descriptive of what He is doing.)
J
juliamajor
Guest
"The Decalogue is given in the Pentateuch in two versions (Ex. xx. 2-17 and Deut. v. 6-18) that exhibit some variants (see below). According to the Biblical records, it represents the solemn utterances of Yhwh on Mt. Sinai, directly revealed by Him to Moses and the people of Israel in the third month after their deliverance from Egypt, amid wonderful manifestations of divine power marked by thunder and lightning and thick smoke (Ex. xix.). As such, God wrote the Ten Words upon two tablets of stone—“tables of testimony” ( , Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 16) or “tables of the covenant” (, Deut. ix. 9, 11, 15)—and gave them to Moses. The people having gone astray, Moses, carried away by righteous indignation, broke the tables (Ex. xxxii. 19), and God subsequently commanded him to hew two other tables like the first (Ex. xxxiv. 1), whereon to rewrite the Ten Words (Ex. xxxiv. 1). According to another passage (Ex. xxxiv. 27, 28), Moses was bidden to rewrite, and did rewrite, the Commandments himself; but in Deut. iv. 13, v. 18, ix. 10, x. 24, God appears as the writer. This second set, broughtdown from Mt. Sinai by Moses (Ex. xxxiv. 29), was placed in the Ark (Ex. xxv. 16, 21; xl. 20), hence designated as the “Ark of the Testimony” (Ex. xxv. 22; Num. iv. 5; compare also I Kings viii. 9).
Contents.
The Decalogue opens with the solemn affirmation, put in the first person, that the speaker is Yhwh, Israel’s (“thy”) God, who hath led Israel (“thee”) out of Egypt. Therefore there shall be for Israel (“thee”) no other gods before Yhwh’s (“my”) face. Prohibition of idolatry follows as a logical amplification of this impressive announcement, and then a caution against taking Yhwh’s name in vain. The duty of remembering the Sabbath and that of honoring father and mother are emphasized. Murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony are forbidden, and the Decalogue concludes with an expanded declaration against, covetousness.
—Critical View:
The Decalogue in Deuteronomy does not differ materially from that in Exodus in regard to the affirmations and obligations contained therein. Verbal discrepancies, however, are comparatively numerous, while the reason adduced for the Sabbath is altogether different. In detail these variants may be grouped as follows:
(a)
Differences in the consonantal (Masoretic) text, in identical words: For example, “miẓwotai” (, Ex. xx. 6), which occurs as “miẓwotaw” (, Deut. v. 10, in the “Ketib”; this variant is due to an anticipation of the transition from the first to the third person which ensues after this verse). Similarly, there are changes in the use and position of the auxiliary vowel letters; e.g., (Ex. xx 5) and (Deut. v. 9); (Ex. xx. 12) and , (Deut. v. 16).
(b)
Syntactical differences: E.g., the syndetic arrangement “children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren” (Ex. xx. 5, Hebr.), over against the polysyndetic" children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren" (Deut. v. 9, Hebr.); and the asyndetic succession “Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. xx. 13-17), over against the polysyndetic “Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not, . . . and,” etc. (Deut. v. 17, Hebr.).
(c)
Stylistic variations: “Covet,” occurring twice in Exodus (xx. 17). is replaced in one instance by “desire” in Deuteronomy (v. 18). “Graven image and any likeness” in Ex. xx. 11 (Hebr.) appears as “[the] graven image of any likeness” in Deut. v. 8 (Hebr.). “Remember () the Sabbath” in Ex. xx. 9 corresponds to “Keep” () in Deut. v. 12. (“false witness”) in Ex. xx. 16 corresponds to (“a witness of iniquity” or “falsehood”) in Deut. v. 17 (A.V. 20), the prohibition being furthermore prefixed by “and.” The sequence “house and wife” in Ex. xx. 17 is reversed to read “wife and house” in Deut. v. 18 (A.V. 21).
(d)
Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=192&letter=D#ixzz0VRZxARE7
Contents.
The Decalogue opens with the solemn affirmation, put in the first person, that the speaker is Yhwh, Israel’s (“thy”) God, who hath led Israel (“thee”) out of Egypt. Therefore there shall be for Israel (“thee”) no other gods before Yhwh’s (“my”) face. Prohibition of idolatry follows as a logical amplification of this impressive announcement, and then a caution against taking Yhwh’s name in vain. The duty of remembering the Sabbath and that of honoring father and mother are emphasized. Murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony are forbidden, and the Decalogue concludes with an expanded declaration against, covetousness.
—Critical View:
The Decalogue in Deuteronomy does not differ materially from that in Exodus in regard to the affirmations and obligations contained therein. Verbal discrepancies, however, are comparatively numerous, while the reason adduced for the Sabbath is altogether different. In detail these variants may be grouped as follows:
(a)
Differences in the consonantal (Masoretic) text, in identical words: For example, “miẓwotai” (, Ex. xx. 6), which occurs as “miẓwotaw” (, Deut. v. 10, in the “Ketib”; this variant is due to an anticipation of the transition from the first to the third person which ensues after this verse). Similarly, there are changes in the use and position of the auxiliary vowel letters; e.g., (Ex. xx 5) and (Deut. v. 9); (Ex. xx. 12) and , (Deut. v. 16).
(b)
Syntactical differences: E.g., the syndetic arrangement “children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren” (Ex. xx. 5, Hebr.), over against the polysyndetic" children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren" (Deut. v. 9, Hebr.); and the asyndetic succession “Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. xx. 13-17), over against the polysyndetic “Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not, . . . and,” etc. (Deut. v. 17, Hebr.).
(c)
Stylistic variations: “Covet,” occurring twice in Exodus (xx. 17). is replaced in one instance by “desire” in Deuteronomy (v. 18). “Graven image and any likeness” in Ex. xx. 11 (Hebr.) appears as “[the] graven image of any likeness” in Deut. v. 8 (Hebr.). “Remember () the Sabbath” in Ex. xx. 9 corresponds to “Keep” () in Deut. v. 12. (“false witness”) in Ex. xx. 16 corresponds to (“a witness of iniquity” or “falsehood”) in Deut. v. 17 (A.V. 20), the prohibition being furthermore prefixed by “and.” The sequence “house and wife” in Ex. xx. 17 is reversed to read “wife and house” in Deut. v. 18 (A.V. 21).
(d)
Read more: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=192&letter=D#ixzz0VRZxARE7
G
geometer
Guest
You have to ask a Rabbi about verse 1. You haven’t trusted what I have told you so, its up to you now. Seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened unto you…
J
juliamajor
Guest
Additions and amplifications: Deuteronomy adds in two places (v. 12, 16) the formula “as Yhwh, thy God, hath commanded thee.” Another addition is found in Deuteronomy in the text of the command to honor father and mother (v. 16): “and that It may go well with thee.” Ex. xx. 10 summarizes “thy cattle,” which in Deut. v. 14 (Hebr.) is expanded to “thine ox and thine *** and all thy cattle,” to which is added “that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” Deut. v. 18 (Hebr.) has “his field,” which in the corresponding passage of Exodus is wanting.
But of greatest interest is the variation in the reason given for the Sabbath. Ex. xx. 10, 11 connects it with creation (compare Gen. ii. 2); Deuteronomy assigns to it a social purpose and connects it with Israel’s liberation from Egyptian bondage. Thus the Sabbath may be said to rest in Exodus on a universal-theological, in Deuteronomy on a national-historical-economic, basis.
A careful analysis of these variants leads to the conclusion that Exodus, on the whole, presents an earlier text than Deuteronomy. The clearly marked effort at stylistic refinement (the substitution of “lo tit’awweh” for " lo taḥmod"; the mention of the “wife” be fore the “house”; even the polysyndetic phrasing, showing a straining after effect) points in this direction. The insertion of the formula “as Yhwh hath commanded” indicates that the appeal rests on a well-known and long-established law. The enumeration of the various kinds of cattle also betrays the hand of a later writer, and so does the explanatory and qualifying gloss “that it may go well with thee.”
(see image) Earliest Manuscript of Decalogue (Second Century?), Containing Variations from the Masoretic Text. Probably the Oldest Ex. ample of Square Characters in a Hebrew Manuscript.(From “Transactions of Society of Biblical Archeology.”)
Relation of the Two Versions.
On the other hand, the variants in the command against idolatry point to the priority of the Deuteronomic reading. Exodus is more explicit and strenuous, as if afraid that the laxer wording (“graven image of any likeness”) of Deut. v. 8 might not be sufficiently comprehensive to bar every species ofidolatry. The Sabbath law in Deuteronomy, at least in part, appears to confirm this; while the expression “keep” is stronger than that in Exodus, “remember,” and would thus indicate a later solicitude for a better observance. Also, its anxiety for the welfare of the servant exhibits a humane spirit not ordinarily to be looked for in documents of antiquity. The introduction of the theological motive in Exodus, where Deuteronomy has the historical-economic, is an element that favors the assumption of the higher antiquity of the Deuteronomic Decalogue.
These variants, however, have been explained as due to scribal carelessness, such as is easily established by a comparison of the texts of other parallel passages; the writers, contrary to the later rabbinic practise and injunction, failing to consult the written text while quoting from memory, and thus mixing with their lines reminiscences of similar but not identical verses (compare Bardowicz, “Studien zur Geschichte der Orthographie des Alt-Hebr.” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1894; Blau, “Studien zum Alt-Hebr. Bücherwesen,” Budapest, 1902). But upon examination this plausible theory will be seen to create new difficulties in the matter in point. The Decalogue must be considered, on the basis of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, to have been fundamental; and as such its wording must have been so accurately fixed as to preclude the possibility of latitude for scribal caprice. The Rabbis, indeed, have felt this difficulty. They have solved it by assuming that both versions are of identical divine origin, and were spoken in a miraculously strange manner at one and the same time (“Bedibbur Eḥad”; see Mek., ed. Weiss, p. 77, Vienna, 1865; Shebu. 20b; R. H. 27b; Yer. Ned. iii. 1; Yer. Shebu. iii. 5; Cant. Rabbah xxviii.; Sifre, Ki Tabo).
Ibn Ezra (to Ex. xx. 1) recognizes the insufficiency of this explanation, but is equally dissatisfied with the solution proposed by Saadia. The latter, conforming to his rigorous theory of inspiration, would not admit that the Masoretic text was other than of divine origin. It is therefore his theory that literally the Deuteronomic Decalogue equally with that of Exodus was divinely inspired. While Exodus presents the reading of the first set of tables, Deuteronomy contains that engraved by divine direction on the second (see “Jour. Asiatique,” Dec., 1861, in Neubauer, “Notice sur la Lexicographie,” etc.; Geiger’s “Jüd. Zeit.” i. 292). With profuse professions of regard for Orthodox teachings, Ibn Ezra ventures to hold that these variants are in the nature of linguistic differences often noticeable in the Biblical books.
—Modern Views:
Modern conservative scholars, with few exceptions (G. Livingston Robinson, “The Decalogue and Criticism,” 1899), in so far as they do not maintain that the version of Exodus is the original Mosaic, or at least the older, while that of Deuteronomy (also Mosaic) departs from the original text in conformity with the parenetic method and purpose of Deuteronomy, have concluded that both versions are amplifications—those in Deuteronomy on the whole being later than those in Exodus—of an anterior and old (Mosaic) but briefer list of ten statements written in the manner of the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, etc. (Strack, “Exodus,” p. 241; Franz Delitzsch, in “Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft und Leben,” 1882, p. 292; Holzinger, “Exodus,” in “Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum A. T.” pp. 79 et seq., Tübingen, 1900; Eduard König, “Einleitung,” p. 187, and Index, s.v.; Wildeboer, “Die Literatur des A. T.” p. 17). "
Deuteronomic and Exodic version of the Decalogue are of equal weight and equally inspired-one is not more sacred or true then the other.
But of greatest interest is the variation in the reason given for the Sabbath. Ex. xx. 10, 11 connects it with creation (compare Gen. ii. 2); Deuteronomy assigns to it a social purpose and connects it with Israel’s liberation from Egyptian bondage. Thus the Sabbath may be said to rest in Exodus on a universal-theological, in Deuteronomy on a national-historical-economic, basis.
A careful analysis of these variants leads to the conclusion that Exodus, on the whole, presents an earlier text than Deuteronomy. The clearly marked effort at stylistic refinement (the substitution of “lo tit’awweh” for " lo taḥmod"; the mention of the “wife” be fore the “house”; even the polysyndetic phrasing, showing a straining after effect) points in this direction. The insertion of the formula “as Yhwh hath commanded” indicates that the appeal rests on a well-known and long-established law. The enumeration of the various kinds of cattle also betrays the hand of a later writer, and so does the explanatory and qualifying gloss “that it may go well with thee.”
(see image) Earliest Manuscript of Decalogue (Second Century?), Containing Variations from the Masoretic Text. Probably the Oldest Ex. ample of Square Characters in a Hebrew Manuscript.(From “Transactions of Society of Biblical Archeology.”)
Relation of the Two Versions.
On the other hand, the variants in the command against idolatry point to the priority of the Deuteronomic reading. Exodus is more explicit and strenuous, as if afraid that the laxer wording (“graven image of any likeness”) of Deut. v. 8 might not be sufficiently comprehensive to bar every species ofidolatry. The Sabbath law in Deuteronomy, at least in part, appears to confirm this; while the expression “keep” is stronger than that in Exodus, “remember,” and would thus indicate a later solicitude for a better observance. Also, its anxiety for the welfare of the servant exhibits a humane spirit not ordinarily to be looked for in documents of antiquity. The introduction of the theological motive in Exodus, where Deuteronomy has the historical-economic, is an element that favors the assumption of the higher antiquity of the Deuteronomic Decalogue.
These variants, however, have been explained as due to scribal carelessness, such as is easily established by a comparison of the texts of other parallel passages; the writers, contrary to the later rabbinic practise and injunction, failing to consult the written text while quoting from memory, and thus mixing with their lines reminiscences of similar but not identical verses (compare Bardowicz, “Studien zur Geschichte der Orthographie des Alt-Hebr.” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1894; Blau, “Studien zum Alt-Hebr. Bücherwesen,” Budapest, 1902). But upon examination this plausible theory will be seen to create new difficulties in the matter in point. The Decalogue must be considered, on the basis of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, to have been fundamental; and as such its wording must have been so accurately fixed as to preclude the possibility of latitude for scribal caprice. The Rabbis, indeed, have felt this difficulty. They have solved it by assuming that both versions are of identical divine origin, and were spoken in a miraculously strange manner at one and the same time (“Bedibbur Eḥad”; see Mek., ed. Weiss, p. 77, Vienna, 1865; Shebu. 20b; R. H. 27b; Yer. Ned. iii. 1; Yer. Shebu. iii. 5; Cant. Rabbah xxviii.; Sifre, Ki Tabo).
Ibn Ezra (to Ex. xx. 1) recognizes the insufficiency of this explanation, but is equally dissatisfied with the solution proposed by Saadia. The latter, conforming to his rigorous theory of inspiration, would not admit that the Masoretic text was other than of divine origin. It is therefore his theory that literally the Deuteronomic Decalogue equally with that of Exodus was divinely inspired. While Exodus presents the reading of the first set of tables, Deuteronomy contains that engraved by divine direction on the second (see “Jour. Asiatique,” Dec., 1861, in Neubauer, “Notice sur la Lexicographie,” etc.; Geiger’s “Jüd. Zeit.” i. 292). With profuse professions of regard for Orthodox teachings, Ibn Ezra ventures to hold that these variants are in the nature of linguistic differences often noticeable in the Biblical books.
—Modern Views:
Modern conservative scholars, with few exceptions (G. Livingston Robinson, “The Decalogue and Criticism,” 1899), in so far as they do not maintain that the version of Exodus is the original Mosaic, or at least the older, while that of Deuteronomy (also Mosaic) departs from the original text in conformity with the parenetic method and purpose of Deuteronomy, have concluded that both versions are amplifications—those in Deuteronomy on the whole being later than those in Exodus—of an anterior and old (Mosaic) but briefer list of ten statements written in the manner of the prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, etc. (Strack, “Exodus,” p. 241; Franz Delitzsch, in “Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft und Leben,” 1882, p. 292; Holzinger, “Exodus,” in “Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum A. T.” pp. 79 et seq., Tübingen, 1900; Eduard König, “Einleitung,” p. 187, and Index, s.v.; Wildeboer, “Die Literatur des A. T.” p. 17). "
Deuteronomic and Exodic version of the Decalogue are of equal weight and equally inspired-one is not more sacred or true then the other.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
You pass over all the other points I brought up in my post to focus on the parenthetical aside? Nice.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Ok stop it, you’ve already made it clear you’re not even Christian in the Septuagint thread.
G
geometer
Guest
Why complain? You seem so disinterested. Give it to me again what are these cogent points that you have come up with?
C
carinapir
Guest
I thought that Joe 5859 was pretty clear. If you look at the chart on Wikipedia, it is easier to see what is being discussed and the discussion seems to be going in circles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Division_of_the_commandments_as_listed_in_Exodus_20
Now you, geometer, appear to be saying that Catholics ignore Exodus 20:1 which is:
"And the Lord spoke all these words"
It is not fair or correct to say that Catholics reject this statement. We simply feel that it is a description of where the next words come from but they are not, in themselves, a Commandment. Have Catholics struck these words from their Bibles? Do Catholics not believe that the Commandments came from God and were spoken by God? What exactly is it that Catholics are missing out on because they do not include these words as a Commandment?
Catholics could add these words to our list of Commandment and the Church would make no changes in tradition or theology at all. So I ask in all seriousness, what is the point that you are trying to make?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Division_of_the_commandments_as_listed_in_Exodus_20
Now you, geometer, appear to be saying that Catholics ignore Exodus 20:1 which is:
"And the Lord spoke all these words"
It is not fair or correct to say that Catholics reject this statement. We simply feel that it is a description of where the next words come from but they are not, in themselves, a Commandment. Have Catholics struck these words from their Bibles? Do Catholics not believe that the Commandments came from God and were spoken by God? What exactly is it that Catholics are missing out on because they do not include these words as a Commandment?
Catholics could add these words to our list of Commandment and the Church would make no changes in tradition or theology at all. So I ask in all seriousness, what is the point that you are trying to make?
G
geometer
Guest
That little seven word phrase in hebrew is considered one of the three most holy statements made by God in the whole of scripture.
No one in this thread has found any statements about this on the web, which is probably as it should be.
You might be able to corner one of the Jewish members of the forum, and get a few words about this.
mazel tov
C
carinapir
Guest
Yes, I looked and I was not able to find any discussion of the significance of those words on the web. Judaism has a long history of Bible study and discussion so I would not be surprised if they have a lot to say about those seven words. I would be great of a Jewish member could share their thoughts. Maybe I will see one around and ask.
But as you seem to know the significance maybe you can share it with us. Do you still assert that Catholics reject these words?
I
Ignatius
Guest
C
crazzeto
Guest
One thing I love about the Catholic Church, is that it is so easy to definitivly prove church teaching:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2.shtml
- Status