Ten Commandments

  • Thread starter Thread starter frtrue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So the God doesn’t actually mean what He says …

No. There are only 10 commandments. The other ‘4 commandments’ are part of the same commandment but you just chose to count it as one disregarding Deuteronomy 10:4 where it says there are only ten, which are these (the bold part, the grey is an explanation or further detail of the commandment):

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; [introduction]

I Do not have any other gods before me.

II You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. [the Grey part is further detail and a message of hope]

III You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. [the Grey part is the reason of why not]
Code:
 **IV  Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.** For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall  not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female  slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all  that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed  the Sabbath day and consecrated it. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long  in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. [here the commandment is the bold part; the Grey is further explanation, details and reasons for why]
** V Honor your father and your mother**, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. [Grey part are reasons of why to keep it]

[snip]

Actually, it is pretty obvious how they should be divided.
Acutally it’s not at all obvious to most people although it may be to you.

As I understand it the Jews considered the first commandment to be “I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

They, therefore saw five commandments about God and five about men. That’s obvious - to them.

On the other hand, the traditional “catholic” understanding (which predates the birth of Christ) sees a very typically semitic pattern of parallels in the last 6 commandments - killing/lying, adultery/lust, and stealing/coveting. That’s obvious - to the people who read it that way.

What is obvious is that there is NOT a blanket commandment against statues and images of living creatures, since the Lord Himself commanded the making of the bronze seraph serpent, the 2 gold cherubim above the Tabernacle, and the 12 bronze bulls that held the sea before the altar. So the commandment is against making images as objects of worship, not against making them at all (as Islam commands) or even against using them in a worship setting.
 
It sure does, of course that doesn’t mean the Jewish people were limited to 10 commandments 🙂 They had 600+ of them actually, called “the law” collectivly.
Correct! Now, there’s actually a subtle difference between the terms used. There are 613 mitzvot (sing. mitzvah ‘commandments’), while there are ten devarim (sing. dabar ‘words’; cf. Greek dekalogos and Latin decem verba, of the same meaning).

Which makes me wonder: why do we say “Ten Commandments” instead of something like “Ten Words” or “Ten Statements” anyway? :confused:
 
Correct! Now, there’s actually a subtle difference between the terms used. There are 613 mitzvot (sing. mitzvah ‘commandments’), while there are ten devarim (sing. dabar ‘words’; cf. Greek dekalogos and Latin decem verba, of the same meaning).

Which makes me wonder: why do we say “Ten Commandments” instead of something like “Ten Words” or “Ten Statements” anyway? :confused:
Probably first due to translations over the years, secondly we obviously recognize that the Eternal Word of God made flesh dwelt with us and taught us directly… Which kind of makes the 10 commandments look almost tame by comparison 😛 lol

Not that I’m saying they’re not important, obviously Christ thought they were.
 
Yep. That’s exactly what the CC does–it gives all the credit to the Holy Spirit.

Just remember, each and every time you quote Scripture you’re giving tacit approval to the authority of the CC.

You would not know that the book of James is inspired but the Gospel of the Nazoreans is not, were it not for the authority of the CC. 🤷
You are contradiction yourself. You just said that the Holy Spirit has the credit, but then you say we should thank you for doing it on your own authority.

Every time I quote Scriptures I’m “giving tacit approval” to the authority of the Holy Spirit. Because you yourself said we (the Church) “give all the credit to the Holy Spirit”, unless you were ironic, of course. Since you don’t take any credit, but the Holy Spirit, every time I quote Scriptures I’m giving “tacit approval” to the holy Spirit, since He has all the credit, according to your own words.

So I’m respecting the authority of the Spirit, not your church’s.
 
You are contradiction yourself. You just said that the Holy Spirit has the credit, but then you say we should thank you for doing it on your own authority.

Every time I quote Scriptures I’m “giving tacit approval” to the authority of the Holy Spirit. Because you yourself said we (the Church) “give all the credit to the Holy Spirit”, unless you were ironic, of course. Since you don’t take any credit, but the Holy Spirit, every time I quote Scriptures I’m giving “tacit approval” to the holy Spirit, since He has all the credit, according to your own words.

So I’m respecting the authority of the Spirit, not your church’s.
No it’s not, you act as if the Holy Spirit came down in person form and did all this personally. It doesn’t work that way, it works through the authority of the Church, an authority which was given it by Jesus Christ in his ministry here on Earth. No contradiction, rather acknowlegement.
 
What is obvious is that there is NOT a blanket commandment against statues and images of living creatures, since the Lord Himself commanded the making of the bronze seraph serpent, the 2 gold cherubim above the Tabernacle, and the 12 bronze bulls that held the sea before the altar. So the commandment is against making images as objects of worship, not against making them at all (as Islam commands) or even against using them in a worship setting.
All those images were for decoration. They were not part of the worship service. The bronze serpent was for a one-time use only. The 2 gold cherubim were for decoration, no bowing down before them. The 12 bronze bulls as well: they were for decoration.

So I have no problem against art, when people make images of saints and statues, but I do find a serious problem when people actually bow down before the statue and in some cases actually kiss it’s foot. Now then it becomes a problem. It is not for decoration anymore.

Now let’s close the parenthesis and get back on topic.
 
Probably first due to translations over the years, secondly we obviously recognize that the Eternal Word of God made flesh dwelt with us and taught us directly… Which kind of makes the 10 commandments look almost tame by comparison 😛 lol

Not that I’m saying they’re not important, obviously Christ thought they were.
I got curious about the first reason you gave, and researched English Bible translations. :o Here’s what I found:

Wyclif’s translation (made from the Vulgate) was still rather literal at this point by rendering decem verba as “ten wordis”. Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535) is still close by ‘translating’ (Coverdale lacked proficiency in Hebrew or Greek so he instead used Latin, English and German translations as his source) it as “ten verses”. The first translation in English to use “ten commaundementes” was the Bishop’s Bible (1568), which was eventually picked up by the Geneva Bible (1587) and later, the KJV (1611).
 
I meant the following to be posted in another thread, but since it’s quite pertinent to the previous discussion, here is a good chunk of it.

Compared to their neighbors, the Israelites contributed little in the way of originality to arts and crafts. Borrowers for the most part, they mostly produced works hardly indistinguishable from that of other cultures of the time. The proscription in Exodus against making pesel (also cf. Deuteronomy 5:8), may have discouraged creativity in this area. Nonetheless, images did exist throughout the history of Israel until the postexilic period, a practice which the Bible does attest to. For example, Gideon fashions an ephod of gold (Judges 8:27) and Micah’s mother contributed silver for the making of an idol (pesel) in Judges 17:3. The Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon themselves were, on the face of it, a direct contravention of the literal understanding of the commandment, yet the authors did not denounce them.

Pesel, which is derived from the verb pasal, “to hew [into shape]”, “fashion by cutting” or “to carve” in Biblical usage would suggest a sort of image hewn from stone or cut from wood (later, the usage would extend to those cast from metal). If we take the wording literally here, the injunction would not include painted images. In most occurrences of the noun in the OT it generally means a sort of “cultic image” (i.e., an idol) and occurs almost exclusively in the context of references to imagery - apparently the word was so strongly colored by the contexts in which it is used. This usage is in contrast to other attested usages of cognates in Northwest Semitic languages, where the root psl still had the main meaning of “to hew” or “to carve”. In Ugaritic for example psl designates craftsmen who work on stones and wood. The occurrences of psl in Punic and Nabataean inscriptions are also associated with stone- or wood-work. The Syriac (psl) and Aramaic (psl/psylh, pslh) cognates, as well as extrabiblical Hebrew usages of the word also fall along the same lines.

The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).

We now need to qualify this prohibition against images. Obviously, cherubim, serpents, lions, oxen and other images of ‘nature’ and ‘mythology’ were at times exempt from the ban. What seems to be forbidden is more often than not the depiction of the Deity Himself. We have as possible extant examples of such both the winged sun-disc symbol above the bull-calf on the top tier of the Ta’anach cult stand and the winged disc/beetle symbol on the seal impressionslmlk on the handles of royal Judahite storage jars.

Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.

The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.

The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
 
You are contradiction yourself. You just said that the Holy Spirit has the credit, but then you say we should thank you for doing it on your own authority.
If you’re a mother you might understand this analogy:
Who is the authority over my children? God of course! Yet, I am also in authority over them. So when I tell them, “Eat your peas” it’s because God has given me the authority to decide what’s best for them to eat.

It’s not either/or. They’re not either obeying God or me–they’re obeying both.

Similarly, God has given authority to Holy Mother Church. So,* each and every time *you quote Scriptures, you are giving tacit approval to your Mother, the CC, for deciding that James was inspired, but the Didache was not. 🤷
Every time I quote Scriptures I’m “giving tacit approval” to the authority of the Holy Spirit
Yes, and the Catholic Church. Just like you obey your Mother because she speaks for God in her directives.
So I’m respecting the authority of the Spirit, not your church’s.
Again, not either/or. You are giving approval to the Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. You agree with Pope Damasus, with the Bishops at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

So, each and every time you quote John 3:16, think about the fact that it was the Catholic bishops who told you that this comes from God.

(Unless you think John 3:16 fell out of the sky into a book that’s on your nightstand! :D)
 
[good stuff snipped for length]

The prohibition was not so much against the act of making of images themselves but against idolatry (i.e. making an image in the purpose of worshipping it) to which the art could lead. The Israelites did, in fact, fashion images, which the prophets regarded, in a concept unique to Israel, as “idols” (cf. Isaiah 30:22; Hosea 13:2).

[snip]

Here we come to one of the unique features of ancient Israelite worship of YHWH – its aniconic character. For example, in one of the most important artifacts of Israelite religion, the Ark of the Covenant, a direct representation of YHWH is absent: His invisible presence is only indicated by His heavenly steeds/mounts, the two cherubim.

The absence of images of the deity and the concomitant prohibition against the representation of the divine in any form is anomalous in the ANE. The creation and use of images in the cultus was at that time commonplace for the religions of that time and place. For the most part in Israel, they were not present and were officially inveighed against.

The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Decalogue suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.[/INDENT]
And this is what gives immense force to John 1:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus WAS that which could not be made - the Image of God.
 
And this is what gives immense force to John 1:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus WAS that which could not be made - the Image of God.
That’s the reasoning St. John of Damascus applies back in the old days when Iconoclasm became rampant in the East:

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation. I venerate it, though not as God. How could God be born out of lifeless things? And if God’s body is God by union, it is immutable. The nature of God remains the same as before, the flesh created in time is quickened by, a logical and reasoning soul.

I honour all matter besides, and venerate it. Through it, filled, as it were, me. Was not the with a divine power and grace, my salvation has come to thrice happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? Was not the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary matter? What of the life-giving rock, the Holy Sepulchre, the source of our resurrection: was it not matter? Is not the most holy book of the Gospels matter? Is not the blessed table matter which gives us the Bread of Life? Are not the gold and silver matter, out of which crosses and altar-plate and chalices are made? And before all these things, is not the body and blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the veneration and worship due to all these things, or submit to the tradition of the Church in the worship of images, honouring God and His friends, and following in this the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Personally, I kind of wish someone would disagrees with St. John of Damascus’ work would tackle it step-by-step for the benefit of us all. 😉
 
A dispute arose yesterday in our Bible Study regarding the Catholic translation of the 10 Commandments in which two people maintained the Catholic Bible eliminated the Second Commandment --“Thou shalt have on other Gods before me…”
I disagreed with their statement. Can you clear this up for me? Thanks.
The Old Testament was around long before the time of the Apostles, and the Decalogue, which is found in three different places in the Bible (Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21), has not been changed by the Catholic Church. Chapter and verse divisions are a medieval invention, however, and numbering systems of the Ten Words (Commandments), the manner in which they are grouped, and the “short-hand” used for them, vary among various religious groups.

The Catholic Church (which includes Eastern Catholics, too) has two different numbering systems for the Commandments given, one agreeing with the most common Protestant enumeration. The Latin Church’s numbering is the most common in the Catholic Church and is the one referred to by Protestants who, ignoring Eastern Catholic Churches, accuse the Catholic Church of having dropped a Commandment. No commandment has been dropped, in any case, but the Latin Church’s shorthand for the Commandments looks different than the typical Protestant version because of how the Commandments are grouped; everyone knows how to find Exodus 20 in the Bible, anyway – even us stupid Latin Catholics; and we don’t care how they are grouped together; we only care that they are understood and obeyed – not because we are under the Old Testament Moral and Ceremonial Law with its legalism and non-salvific ritual (we aren’t!), but because we are to obey God as children of the New Covenant, whose moral law includes the Two Great Commandments (to love God and to love our neighbor) which surpass the Decalogue, and whose Sacraments surpass empty ritual, being media of grace.
 
If you’re a mother you might understand this analogy:
Who is the authority over my children? God of course! Yet, I am also in authority over them. So when I tell them, “Eat your peas” it’s because God has given me the authority to decide what’s best for them to eat.

It’s not either/or. They’re not either obeying God or me–they’re obeying both.
But the higher authority is to be obeyed rather than the lower.
Similarly, God has given authority to Holy Mother Church. So,* each and every time *you quote Scriptures, you are giving tacit approval to your Mother, the CC, for deciding that James was inspired, but the Didache was not. 🤷
No, because they are His words, not yours. If you tell me to ‘eat my peas’, those are your words. But the Scripture is His word, so I’m respecting His authority, not yours, since they are His words, nto yours.
Yes, and the Catholic Church. Just like you obey your Mother because she speaks for God in her directives.
As long as she doesn’t command anything against God’s commandments. If she says: ‘go son and masturbate’, I hope we both agree I would rather obey God (masturbation is a sin) than my mom. She only has authority as long as she stays in the truth.
Again, not either/or. You are giving approval to the Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. You agree with Pope Damasus, with the Bishops at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

So, each and every time you quote John 3:16, think about the fact that it was the Catholic bishops who told you that this comes from God.

(Unless you think John 3:16 fell out of the sky into a book that’s on your nightstand! :D)
The bold part is the important part. If a blind man is guided by his friend on the road and the blind reached the end, whom are you going to give credit to? The friend, of course. You can do nothing on your own, just like the blind man cannot walk on his own. I’m giving credit to the Holy Spirit (friend), because without Him the Church (blind man in this allegory) could do nothing by herself. So I’m giving approval to the Holy Spirit, not to the Church.
 
But the higher authority is to be obeyed rather than the lower.
The Head and the Body are one and the same. If you only serve Christ and not His Body then you are worshiping a decapitated Christ. A bodyless Head. And, this is contrary to Scripture.
No, because they are His words, not yours. If you tell me to ‘eat my peas’, those are your words. But the Scripture is His word, so I’m respecting His authority, not yours, since they are His words, nto yours.
Now you are mixing metaphors. Stick with one.

If the Church speaks, all the Bishops in union with the Pope, then it is His words. (He who hears you hears me. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven. If you retain men’s sins they are retained.)
As long as she doesn’t command anything against God’s commandments. If she says: ‘go son and masturbate’, I hope we both agree I would rather obey God (masturbation is a sin) than my mom. She only has authority as long as she stays in the truth.
Clearly.

So let’s talk about the “commands of Holy Mother Church” that you believe are contrary to God’s commandments.

Let’s just start with one.

(BTW, what Bible verse tells you that “masturbation is a sin”? Not that I disagree. I’m just asking you, a Bible Christian, where you got that it’s a sin.)
 
The bold part is the important part. If a blind man is guided by his friend on the road and the blind reached the end, whom are you going to give credit to? The friend, of course. You can do nothing on your own, just like the blind man cannot walk on his own. I’m giving credit to the Holy Spirit (friend), because without Him the Church (blind man in this allegory) could do nothing by herself. So I’m giving approval to the Holy Spirit, not to the Church.
Again, it’s not either/or.

Cristian, have you ever told anyone that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt? Or Moses led them in the desert? Or Moses parted the Red Sea?

It would not be incorrect to say that, would it? But, clearly, we Christians know that it was God who did all. Through Moses. 🤷
 
Again, it’s not either/or.

Cristian, have you ever told anyone that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt? Or Moses led them in the desert? Or Moses parted the Red Sea?

It would not be incorrect to say that, would it? But, clearly, we Christians know that it was God who did all. Through Moses. 🤷
Or, here’s a better question: Cristian, have you ever said something like, “the law that Moses wrote”?

Did you really mean that Moses wrote it? Or is the author God Himself? When you say that Moses wrote the law, are you giving him credit?
 
The Head and the Body are one and the same. If you only serve Christ and not His Body then you are worshiping a decapitated Christ. A bodyless Head. And, this is contrary to Scripture.
Nope. The head controls the body, and not the body the head. They are not the same.
Now you are mixing metaphors. Stick with one.

If the Church speaks, all the Bishops in union with the Pope, then it is His words. (He who hears you hears me. Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven. If you retain men’s sins they are retained.)
Right. But the Catholic Church has been silencing members of the Church that were opposing her along the ages, so it’s not very fair, as you make it seem.
Clearly.

So let’s talk about the “commands of Holy Mother Church” that you believe are contrary to God’s commandments.

Let’s just start with one.
Immortality of man.
(BTW, what Bible verse tells you that “masturbation is a sin”? Not that I disagree. I’m just asking you, a Bible Christian, where you got that it’s a sin.)
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Matthew 5:28 KJV)
If you tell me that we can indeed masturbate without thinking at sex but at … strawberries for example, then masturbation is not a sin. But if you do think of coitus in your mind with a woman, man or animal then you are committing a sin, which is adultery and fornication in your mind.

Also, sex is to be shared with your wife, not to be enjoyed selfishly in a dark corner all by yourself. We live for one another, not for ourselves.
 
Nope. The head controls the body, and not the body the head. They are not the same.
Then you are serving a decapitated Christ. A Head without a Body.

Catholics, as we have been saying for a long time, have the FULLNESS of Christ.
Right. But the Catholic Church has been silencing members of the Church that were opposing her along the ages, so it’s not very fair, as you make it seem.
Perhaps.

What’s really unfair if for us to compare our churches “along the ages” --because your church has only been around for ___ how long?
Immortality of man.
What “command of the CC” states this? Can you be more specific, please.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Matthew 5:28 KJV)
If you tell me that we can indeed masturbate without thinking at sex but at … strawberries for example, then masturbation is not a sin. But if you do think of coitus in your mind with a woman, man or animal then you are committing a sin, which is adultery and fornication in your mind.
Ok. I’m with you on this. I can see that verse as supportive that masturbation is a sin.

Also, I’m very interested in your reply to my questions:
Or, here’s a better question: Cristian, have you ever said something like, “the law that Moses wrote”?

Did you really mean that Moses wrote it? Or is the author God Himself? When you say that Moses wrote the law, are you giving him credit?
 
PRmerger, I am afraid I cannot continue this discussion. I have already been warned about derailing a thread off-topic by the moderator. Since this has no connection with the original question about the Ten Commandments, this has to stop.

God bless you.
 
PRmerger, I am afraid I cannot continue this discussion. I have already been warned about derailing a thread off-topic by the moderator. Since this has no connection with the original question about the Ten Commandments, this has to stop.

God bless you.
As you wish.

I think that my point has been made that when you say “the law that Moses wrote” or “Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt” it is giving tacit authority to God’s leadership, through Moses. Yet it is not incorrect to say that Moses wrote the law.

Similarly, when we say “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible” it is giving tacit authority to God’s leadership,* through* the Catholic Church. It is not incorrect to say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top