Christians and the Ten Commandments

Coriolanus

Just wondering, do christian faiths generally hold to the commandments as a body of rules?
I've seen some discussion about how Christians aren't bound by some stuff in Leviticus(?) about circumcision for example.

Or is it a case that the teachings of Jesus cover the ten points anyway, so it's largely academic?

Thanks for the help.

Edit: Specific examples would be great! Cathol, CofE etc, if anyone feels comfortably knowledgeable about them.

PDN

Some Christians see the Ten Commandments as still being binding today. However, many of us do not. I believe that nine of the commandments are restated in the New Testament anyway (the exception being the one about the Sabbath).

Overblood

Out of curiosity, what happened before Moses descended with the two tablets? Was the earth just pure chaos? Full of murder and destruction? Btw he left out rape child abuse.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what happened before Moses descended with the two tablets? Was the earth just pure chaos? Full of murder and destruction? Btw he left out rape child abuse.

Not just pure chaos, but certainly full of murder and destruction. Just read a history book.

He also left out computer hacking, jay walking, cheating at exams, and a hundred and one other immoral acts. All of which shouldn't worry anyone other than a troll or an absolut half-wit who thinks the Ten Commandments were intended to be a full and comprehensive list of every imaginable sin. :rolleyes:

Overblood

PDN wrote: »

Not just pure chaos, but certainly full of murder and destruction. Just read a history book.

He also left out computer hacking, jay walking, cheating at exams, and a hundred and one other immoral acts. All of which shouldn't worry anyone other than a troll or an absolut half-wit who thinks the Ten Commandments were intended to be a full and comprehensive list of every imaginable sin. :rolleyes:

Ok I've just finished reading a history book that spans the past 500 years of European History. Lots of murder and destruction. You know, the odd war here and there, and of course the 'ol Inquisition. Do you know that "Saint" Augustine recommended a good method of examining the cases of witches and heretics: beat them with rods until they confess! I have the slightest inkling that the Ten Commandments didn't really work.

And as for computer hacking, come on now PDN there were no computers back then. What were they supposed to hack? An abacus? And I'm pretty sure that j-walking was a non existent concept too.

But rape is a very serious crime and it sure was around back then. I find it extremely unsettling that it wasn't mentioned.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Ok I've just finished reading a history book that spans the past 500 years of European History. Lots of murder and destruction. You know, the odd war here and there, and of course the 'ol Inquisition. Do you know that "Saint" Augustine recommended a good method of examining the cases of witches and heretics: beat them with rods until they confess! I have the slightest inkling that the Ten Commandments didn't really work.

If you think that the Ten Commandments were designed to eradicate all wrong doing from the world then, no, they didn't work.

However, they did fulfill their intended purpose of highlighting man's moral depravity and sinfulness, thus making him aware of his need for a Saviour.

Overblood

I'm not morally depraved or sinful though, so I don't need a saviour. Are you morally depraved and sinful?

PDN where does it say that the ten commandments were only intended to highlight mans depravity?

JimiTime

Overblood wrote: »

I'm not morally depraved or sinful though,

Of course you aren't, you are your own god. Relative to your standards you are perfectly fine.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

I'm not morally depraved or sinful though, so I don't need a saviour.

You are on the Christian forum.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course you aren't, you are your own god.

Is it necessary to be a god in order to not be morally depraved? Weren't Adam and Eve not morally depraved?

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

I'm not morally depraved or sinful though, so I don't need a saviour. Are you morally depraved and sinful?

That's an interesting theological point. Christians believe that mankind in general is sinful and depraved - but does that moral depravity extend to trolls? Are trolls human? Do trolls have a soul?

PDN where does it say that the ten commandments were only intended to highlight mans depravity?

Try reading the Book of Romans.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it necessary to be a god in order to not be morally depraved? Weren't Adam and Eve not morally depraved?

In the end it would appear so.

Overblood

PDN wrote: »

That's an interesting theological point. Christians believe that mankind in general is sinful and depraved - but does that moral depravity extend to trolls? Are trolls human? Do trolls have a soul?

I lol'd a bit.

Ps. I might flick through the book of romans later, but I've found some info on the net. Here are some relevant quotes from Romans:

Romans 4:15 “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet.”

So even though the Ten Commandments were called.... "Commandments", they weren't actually commandments. It was more like a simple list of sins that people could refer to and figure out if they needed to ask god for forgiveness. Before the Ten Commandments, they knew that murder was bad, but they didn't know that it was a sin against god. Is that right? When the commandments were created, people could now tell what god thought of as a sin, so they could pray and ask for forgiveness accordingly. Or something.

Are you telling me that they really aren't "commandments"?

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

Not just pure chaos, but certainly full of murder and destruction. Just read a history book.

Wow. What a good thing he arrived then so.

antiskeptic

Overblood wrote: »

But rape is a very serious crime and it sure was around back then. I find it extremely unsettling that it wasn't mentioned.

"Thou shalt not steal" provides adequate cover - stealing being the illegitimate taking of that which doesn't belong to you.

philologos

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering, do christian faiths generally hold to the commandments as a body of rules?
I've seen some discussion about how Christians aren't bound by some stuff in Leviticus(?) about circumcision for example.

Or is it a case that the teachings of Jesus cover the ten points anyway, so it's largely academic?

Thanks for the help.

Edit: Specific examples would be great! Cathol, CofE etc, if anyone feels comfortably knowledgeable about them.

OP, in Anglicanism the moral commandments of the Torah and of the Old Testament are binding on all Christian men. The laws that relate to the rule of civil law in Israel, and cultural rules such as dietary laws, circumcision, animal sacrifice have been fulfilled.

Moral laws go far beyond the 10 commandments, they are contained right throughout the Bible. Most of these moral laws are also repeated in the New Testament. You'll find if you have a cross reference Bible, and look to the passages of Jesus' teachings, it will include a reference to an Old Testament passage. Likewise with Paul and others.

It's a myth that some atheists like to put out there that the Old Testament is totally different to the New when that couldn't be further from the case.

Overblood: You might want to read the rest of the Torah and the Tanakh for that matter. The author deals with rape quite extensively in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 22. You'll also find that the tribes of Israel revolted against Benjamin because of a rape in the book of Judges chapters 19 to 20.

Overblood

How does that cover rape? That refers to physical theft, ie stealing somebodies bike. How are illiterate dimwits from 1500BC supposed to read into a commandment like that? Why hide rape in a commandment and not murder? Murder is surely "theft" of somebodies life but that has it's own place.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Thou shalt not steal" provides adequate cover - stealing being the illegitimate taking of that which doesn't belong to you.

Depends on what you mean adequate cover

The Old Testament is littered with examples of Israelite soldiers being given women from conquered lands as wives and told to take them. The implicate is forced marriage and rape, a common occurrence of wars back then and still now.

But because the spoils of war are considered property of the victor that does not fall under the legality of "Thou shalt not steal", which provides no protection for these women.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

How does that cover rape? That refers to physical theft, ie stealing somebodies bike. How are illiterate dimwits from 1500BC supposed to read into a commandment like that? Why hide rape in a commandment and not murder? Murder is surely "theft" of somebodies life but that has it's own place.

Rape within marriage only became to be considered a crime in the last few hundred years (last century in a lot of place).

For most of history rape within marriage was not considered rape, it was considered marital duty. If you refused to have sex with your husband or wife the problem was with you, and your husband or wife (mostly your husband) had the right to expect sexual intercourse.

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

Some Christians see the Ten Commandments as still being binding today. However, many of us do not.

I call heretic :rolleyes:

Seriously though , if you believe the bible to be correct then for you to reject even one of the commandments is sheer lunacy after all the ten commandments are the only part of the bible or indeed the only thing ever that god felt so important that he was compelled to right them himself.

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

I call heretic :rolleyes:

Seriously though , if you believe the bible to be correct then for you to reject even one of the commandments is sheer lunacy after all the ten commandments are the only part of the bible or indeed the only thing ever that god felt so important that he was compelled to right them himself.

In light of the NT and the coming of Christ, could you tell me why you would maintain sabbath observance?

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

How does that cover rape? That refers to physical theft, ie stealing somebodies bike. How are illiterate dimwits from 1500BC supposed to read into a commandment like that? Why hide rape in a commandment and not murder? Murder is surely "theft" of somebodies life but that has it's own place.

Illiterate dimwits from 1500BC appear to have understood it pretty well. It only seems to be slightly more literate dimwits from the 20th Century who have difficulty with it.

BTW, the Ten Commandments were not intended to be exhaustive but were supplemented with five full books of laws and instructions.

So even though the Ten Commandments were called.... "Commandments", they weren't actually commandments. It was more like a simple list of sins that people could refer to and figure out if they needed to ask god for forgiveness. Before the Ten Commandments, they knew that murder was bad, but they didn't know that it was a sin against god. Is that right? When the commandments were created, people could now tell what god thought of as a sin, so they could pray and ask for forgiveness accordingly. Or something.

Are you telling me that they really aren't "commandments"?

They were commandments alright. People were supposed to try to obey them, even though everyone would, at some time another, fail to obey then fully. But their ultimate purpose was to make people aware of their need for a Saviour. In Galatians Paul describes the law as a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ.

crotalus667 wrote:

Seriously though , if you believe the bible to be correct then for you to reject even one of the commandments is sheer lunacy after all the ten commandments are the only part of the bible or indeed the only thing ever that god felt so important that he was compelled to right them himself.

No, if you believe the Bible to correct then it would be lunacy to treat it as a collection of unrelated infallible sayings - that would make it nothing more than a book of spells. It makes more sense to read the different parts of the Bible in context and to understand the overall progression of thought and the relation between the various writings.

If you are reading anything else - say a novel or a thesis, you don't expect to rip a section from the middle of the text, or an introduction, and then treat it as if the rest of the text didn't exist. The same goes for the Bible.

me_right_one

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering, do christian faiths generally hold to the commandments as a body of rules?
I've seen some discussion about how Christians aren't bound by some stuff in Leviticus(?) about circumcision for example.

Or is it a case that the teachings of Jesus cover the ten points anyway, so it's largely academic?

Thanks for the help.

Edit: Specific examples would be great! Cathol, CofE etc, if anyone feels comfortably knowledgeable about them.

Catholic. Yep. They're the basic building blocks of todays laws and justice systems. No stealing, no killing, no lying etc.

Somebody mentioned rape? "You shall not commit adultery" ie. Anything other than consensual straight sex between a married couple is a no-no.

The 10 C's largely seen as a safety net for sin - Dont do these things and you will be at least going generally in the right direction:)

Soul Winner

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering, do christian faiths generally hold to the commandments as a body of rules?

Some do and some don't. Some Christian believe that if they keep the ten commandments then they and they alone will get to heaven. Others think that assuming your so called keeping of the ten commandments will be the pivotal factor in getting you to heaven will be the very thing that will keep you out because to think that your performance in keeping the law or the ten commandments has any bearing on your salvation is to reject the work of Christ as being sufficient to cover your inability to keep either.

Nevore wrote: »

I've seen some discussion about how Christians aren't bound by some stuff in Leviticus(?) about circumcision for example.

Or is it a case that the teachings of Jesus cover the ten points anyway, so it's largely academic?

Yes in Christ the law is just academic. It has been put away. It no longer has any hold over us. To resurrect it from the dead is to pull our sins off the cross of Christ and to put them back onto us. To preach that we can be justified by the works of the law is a damnable doctrine and totally anti-Christian.

Nevore wrote: »

Edit: Specific examples would be great! Cathol, CofE etc, if anyone feels comfortably knowledgeable about them.

Hope what I posted above suffices if not then I am more than happy to elaborate and give scriptural support too.

me_right_one

Soul Winner wrote: »

Others think that assuming your so called keeping of the ten commandments will be the pivotal factor in getting you to heaven will be the very thing that will keep you out because to think that your performance in keeping the law or the ten commandments has any bearing on your salvation is to reject the work of Christ as being sufficient to cover your inability to keep either.

No offence, but thats a bit long-winded. Could you explain that in smaller bits please?

wolfsbane

crotalus667 wrote: »

I call heretic :rolleyes:

Seriously though , if you believe the bible to be correct then for you to reject even one of the commandments is sheer lunacy after all the ten commandments are the only part of the bible or indeed the only thing ever that god felt so important that he was compelled to right them himself.

PDN is not rejecting any commandment. He is pointing out it is no longer a commandment. It was part of the Covenant made with Israel at Sinai, which covenant is no longer exists. The New Covenant replaced it.

Many Christians hold that all ten of the Ten Commandments are eternal moral law. Others that the Sabbath was a sign of the Old Covenant and not eternal law.

Does that mean there is no Law - not at all. The eternal moral law continues, as it did from the beginning. It was always sinful to murder, steal, etc. And always will be. All mankind are obliged to obey God's moral law, in every era.

The Ten Commandments brought both eternal moral law and the sign of the Covenant to bear on the consciences of Israel, forced them to see how sinful they really were. Just as a bright light reveals to us more clearly the grime that we have failed to see before. And making sin plain, it stirred up sinful hearts with the awareness of it, as pornography inflames toward more of the same.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you mean adequate cover

The Old Testament is littered with examples of Israelite soldiers being given women from conquered lands as wives and told to take them. The implicate is forced marriage and rape, a common occurrence of wars back then and still now.

I've heard this one posited a number of times but have yet to see anyone make a case that doesn't rely on assuming what they see as implied being the actual case. One example, for instance, is recounted in Numbers where the Israelites slaughter all but the Midianite virgins and are permitted to take those virgins 'for themselves'. Whatever that means...

Given the seriousness of the charge, is there any biblical evidence available that doesn't rely on such assumptions?

But because the spoils of war are considered property of the victor that does not fall under the legality of "Thou shalt not steal", which provides no protection for these women.

The fact that someone becomes someone else property by virtue of war doesn't mean that there aren't laws governing treatment of that person. Is there biblical evidence to support the charge?

Slav

Nevore wrote: »

Just wondering, do christian faiths generally hold to the commandments as a body of rules?
I've seen some discussion about how Christians aren't bound by some stuff in Leviticus(?) about circumcision for example.

Or is it a case that the teachings of Jesus cover the ten points anyway, so it's largely academic?

For an unknown reason many people keep seeing the Ten Commandments as the foundation for the Christian faith. However the New Testament message is very clear: God Himself came to us so the Law in its old sense is not really relevant anymore "for the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Matt 12:8).

Despite the fact that many of the Old Testament laws were reaffirmed in New Testament they have a very different motivation behind them. Think of law as the Old Testament keyword and grace as the one for the New Testament.

Speaking about Sabbath as the only one out of the 10 not being explicitly restated in the New Testament, it's still a special day for many Christians but not in the same way it is/was for Jews. As you can see it's a non-working day in many countries with Christian background and it also has special liturgical meaning in some Churches.

Soul Winner

me_right_one wrote: »

No offence, but thats a bit long-winded. Could you explain that in smaller bits please?

No offence taken, I’ll try and break it down into longer bits for you.

The Law, as perfect as it is, cannot save anybody. All it can do is measure your performance of it and condemn you if you don't keep it perfectly and perpetually. One tiny miss of it just once in your life means that you have broken it all. It cannot bend down to help because to do so would be to compromise its own perfectness. Jesus made it even harder by saying things like this: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 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 5:27-28. So even the thought of doing a wrong deed is the same as actually doing the wrong deed.

How then can anyone be saved you might ask? They can't be saved unless the price for their sin is paid. Man doesn't have the means or the resources to repay such a debt. He needs someone who does have the means to do it, and that someone not only must have the means to pay the debt but must be freely willing to do so and then must actually do so. Christ met all these criteria and it is through Him that we pass out from under the curse of the law, which is death to all who don't keep it.

To all those who trust in this work of Christ are two things given. 1) Judicial imputation of righteousness and 2) Enlivening regeneration of the indwelling power of God's spirit. All that is required from us as already said is trusting in God and His promises i.e. Faith. When you trust God He sees you judicially as being as perfect as Jesus, but He also empowers you to actually do the works required in the law, the most important commandments of which were the first two commandments. 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' As Jesus says in Matthew 22:37-39 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Which means if you keep them then you keep the whole law and likewise if you don't keep them then you break the whole law.

Most of Christianity will tell you that in order to be born again by the spirit you must believe in the heart and profess with the mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. And that is right, when you do this you are that moment in the state described above, judicial imputation of righteousness and the deposit of life giving power to change you is placed in your heart. But what most of Christianity also does is abort that embryo of life power by telling you that now you are a Christian you must walk worthy of that calling. What a tragedy that is. The perfectionist doctrines that are peddled from pulpits all over the world have extinguished this life by resurrecting the law which died in Christ on the cross and beating new converts over the head with it to get them to perform the works of the law through effort of their own and not by simply trusting in God’s power freely given for faith in you to do the perfecting. These are the real enemies of Jesus Christ and Satan has used them to great effect over the centuries. They have done more damage to the Church of God than any other evil in the world. The reason being is because they are seated in the place of God and are seen as speaking for God and as a result have turned normal thinking people off the real Gospel of Christ when it is proclaimed.

Their perfectionist doctrines have sent and continues to send more people to hell than all the pubs, whore houses, drug dens in the world put together. Paul said if you are under one jot of the law then you are indebted to do the whole law - Galatians 5:3. So anyone who thinks that because they don’t actually commit adultery but do it in their hearts and then beat everyone over the head with the law will pass muster with God they have another thing coming. To all new Christians, don’t let anyone tell you that you must keep some of the law in order to be accepted by God. It is a lie from the pit of hell, don’t fall for it. Just trust in the promises of God while it is still called today and you are at that very moment seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. No fleshly effort in keeping the law can empower you to this status, only faith in Christ can do that and that’s why Faith Alone is the only way to life eternal. That has always been the Gospel and always will be, it is never anything else.

So, "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Soul Winner

Slav wrote: »

Speaking about Sabbath as the only one out of the 10 not being explicitly restated in the New Testament, it's still a special day for many Christians but not in the same way it is/was for Jews. As you can see it's a non-working day in many countries with Christian background and it also has special liturgical meaning in some Churches.

Saturday was always the Sabbath, and the Lord's day was always Sunday, the reason being is because He rose on the first day of the week (Sunday). This fulfilled the Jewish feast (set time of the Lord) of First Fruits. Jewish days start at 6pm our time. So for Christ to be three days and three nights in the tomb and to raise when Sunday kicked in would mean that the feast of Passover (14th day of the Jewish month of Nissan or April) in that particular year would have to have fallen between 6pm Tuesday and 6pm Wednesday. He would have had to be in the tomb at 6pm on Wednesday. And from 6pm Wednesday to 6pm Thursday is one 24 hour period. From 6pm Thursday to 6pm Friday is two 24 hour periods. And from 6pm Friday to 6pm Saturday is three 24 hour periods. So at 6pm Saturday He rose which fulfilled the 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb and as it was starting the first day of the week which was the Feast of First Fruits in that week, He also fulfilled that feast right on time too. That is why Sunday is called the Lord's day and is also why we have Sunday worship instead of a Sabbath day. He did not rise at dawn but rather at dusk on Saturday evening which started the frist day of the week in Jewish timing. This blows the idea that He died at 3pm on Friday and rose on Sunday morning out the window. How can that be three days and three nights? It's one and half days and 2 nights at most.

Slav

Soul Winner wrote: »

Saturday was always the Sabbath, and the Lord's day was always Sunday, the reason being is because He rose on the first day of the week (Sunday).

Not sure why you started talking about Sunday and how it relates to the discussion...

The OP question was about 10 Commandments and I was talking about Saturday, not Sunday.

Soul Winner

Slav wrote: »

Not sure why you started talking about Sunday and how it relates to the discussion...

The OP question was about 10 Commandments and I was talking about Saturday, not Sunday.

I'm sorry, its late and I can't sleep I'm even finding myself posting in other fora :eek:

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've heard this one posited a number of times but have yet to see anyone make a case that doesn't rely on assuming what they see as implied being the actual case. One example, for instance, is recounted in Numbers where the Israelites slaughter all but the Midianite virgins and are permitted to take those virgins 'for themselves'. Whatever that means...

Given that forced marriage was a common occurrence, and given the attitudes to rape inside marriage up until the middle of last century, I think it is relatively obvious that that means.

I would take the reverse of your attitude, I've yet to see anyone making a case that these passages are not describing forced marriage and marital rape without invoking some rather ridiculous theories such as the women were throwing themselves at the men because of Stockholm Syndrome, or that all the women of the captured land who have just had their mothers fathers brothers and sisters slaughtered would see marriage to a soldier as a good "opportunity" and give themselves happily to their new husbands.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given the seriousness of the charge, is there any biblical evidence available that doesn't rely on such assumptions?

I'm not sure the charge is any more serious than mass genocide?

But no, you aren't going to find the phrase "you may now rape your wife" in the Bible. You are not going to find the word sex either. Or homosexuality. These are inferred from the phrases used, such as to lie with.

If you have strong objections to the idea that after the Israelites killed all the men, boys and married women and then forced the virgins into marriage, that they then raped them you aren't going to find explicate passage saying they didn't.

But if you never ask the woman if she consents to what is happening to her you are never going to get the answer that she doesn't, are you?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

But if you never ask the woman if she consents to what is happening to her you are never going to get the answer that she doesn't, are you?

I don't think any woman 'consented' as such to alot that went on back then. Its not like the natives went to the disco on saturday night and met a girl they liked. The men usually asked the father for their daughter. That did not mean, that sexual relations in their marriage bed was rape though.