The Ten Commandments and the changed Roman Catholic version

[TheWay]

There are 613 laws in the Old Testament.

However, Jesus said that all the law and the prophets are encompassed in these two laws:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Easy and clear to follow!

The Ten Commandments compared to the Law of Moses:

[SurferSoul]

 

 
“For I your lord am a jealous god”

Proof right there that religion was invented as a means control. Either that or Moses was talking to the demiurge and not the true god. Still it was and is a very effective means of control, how else would people believe in such mumbo jumbo 2 thousand years+ later? 
Fear of punishment and damnation and reward for obedience seems to be a very powerful motivator.

[quintessentone]

No, we do know. The Scripture makes it very clear. 

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgement, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27-28 WEBPB)

This is an obvious sign of the righteous judgement of God, to the end that you may be counted worthy of God’s Kingdom, for which you also suffer. For it is a righteous thing with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, punishing those who don’t know God, and to those who don’t obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus, who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes in that day to be glorified in his saints and to be admired amongst all those who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we also pray always for you that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfil every desire of goodness and work of faith with power, that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-12 WEBPB)

He who overcomes, I will give him these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son. But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:7-8 WEBPB)

Yes, scripture does make it clear from The Gospel of Thomas and other sources. The lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death, may well be a cleansing fire Jesus put upon the place/within and without your essence of your second death to help cleanse and guide those that were/are lost.

If God did speak to mortal man, then if mortal man could not understand Jesus' teachings, then it is highly doubtful mortal man interpreted God's word with accurate meaning let alone understanding.

"(10) Jesus says:
“I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes.”"
-------------------

The Sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas - Biblical Archaeology Society

"(3) Jesus says:
(1) “If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds of the sky will precede you.
(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.
(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you.”
(4) “When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.
(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty.”"

"(5) Jesus says:
(1) “Come to know what is in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will become clear to you.
(2) For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest.”"

- Biblical Archaeology Society

**Mod. edit -- Fixed nested quotes**

[Bootless]

To know and love God is to obey.

Let’s fear therefore, lest perhaps anyone of you should seem to have come short of a promise of entering into his rest. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, even as they also did, but the word they heard didn’t profit them, because it wasn’t mixed with faith by those who heard. For we who have believed do enter into that rest, even as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, they will not enter into my rest;” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has said this somewhere about the seventh day, “God rested on the seventh day from all his works;” and in this place again, “They will not enter into my rest.” Seeing therefore it remains that some should enter into it, and they to whom the good news was preached before failed to enter in because of disobedience, he again defines a certain day, “today”, saying through David so long a time afterward (just as has been said), “Today if you will hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For he who has entered into his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his. Let’s therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. There is no creature that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account. (Hebrews 4:1-13 WEBPB)
[font]...[/font]

If you love me, keep my commandments. ... (John 14:15-18 WEBPB)

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Don’t you know that when you present yourselves as servants and obey someone, you are the servants of whomever you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness? (Romans 6:15-16 WEBPB)
...
...“This is my commandment, that you love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do whatever I command you. (John 15:9-14 WEBPB)

And by this we know that we are of the truth and persuade our hearts before him, because if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our hearts don’t condemn us, we have boldness towards God; so whatever we ask, we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight. This is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he commanded. He who keeps his commandments remains in him, and he in him. By this we know that he remains in us, by the Spirit which he gave us. (1 John 3:19-24 WEBPB)
...

I would recommend that you read up on textual and biblical criticism. I'm not even a neophyte in the field but I am aware of some conclusions that experts have made, and some theories that have held up over time. We don't know who wrote the Gospels (most likely not eye witnesses) and have only ranges for when they were written.

Here is a little something that I wrote:

There is a commercial that I have seen very often of late. It goes "Well I'm not a ----, but I've seen --- hours of ---- shows on ---". So what I'm saying is I am no detective but I've seen many Court room and Detective shows and movies on regular television; all the way back to Perry Mason (1957-1966). 

In order for a piece of evidence to be admissible in court it needs to have a chain of evidence. Otherwise what would prevent a prosecutor from buying a gun, bringing it into court and saying "This is the gun that the accused had in his hand when he was arrested."?

Textual critics, I believe, follow similar methods of detection when dating and attributing authorship: oldest extant manuscript, first quoted by another, first attributed to person X by person y, and etc.

Now when I was in my senior year of high school, I did a term paper with live presentation of the Philosophy of Epicurus. All that I could find was the two page entry in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I xeroxed those pages and studied them. It said that though Epicurus was reputed to have written 300 works, very few remain. There did seem to be a work called Principal Doctrines still around, but not in the school library. My presentation did not feature a bunch of quotes, if there were any quotes at all.  

When I first saw this oft quoted saying attributed to Epicurus a few years ago I was very skeptical of its authenticity:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

I reasoned thus: If Epicurus (341–270 BC) had never been presented with the idea of an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent God, why would he come up with a refutation? Well, he wouldn't. So I checked Wikiquote. Sure enough, the first known variant of that saying was written in Christian church father Lactantius's De Ira Dei(On the Anger of God) (c. 318): 587 years after the death of Epicurus.

Evidently Lactantius made the saying up himself so as to refute the problem of evil argument or that God was still just in the face of all that wrath in some way.

Here is another example of things that may be close and maybe not so close to the original:

 Pericles's Funeral Oration  was recorded by Thucydides in book two of his famous History of the Peloponnesian War. Although Thucydides records the speech in the first person as if it were a word for word record of what Pericles said, there can be little doubt that he edited the speech at the very least. Thucydides says early in his History that the speeches presented are not verbatim records, but are intended to represent the main ideas of what was said and what was, according to Thucydides, "called for in the situation". We can be reasonably sure that Pericles delivered a speech at the end of the first year of the war, but there is no consensus as to what degree Thucydides's record resembles Pericles's actual speech. Another confusing factor is that Pericles is known to have delivered another funeral oration in BC 440 during the Samian War. It is possible that elements of both speeches are represented in Thucydides's version. Nevertheless, Thucydides was extremely meticulous in his documentation, and records the varied certainty of his sources each time. Significantly he begins recounting the speech by saying: "Περικλῆς ὁ Ξανθίππου… ἔλεγε τοιάδε", i.e. "Pericles, son of Xanthippos, spoke like this". Had he quoted the speech verbatim, he would have written "τάδε" ("this", or "these words") instead of "τοιάδε" ("like this" or "words like these"). The authorship of the Funeral Oration is also not certain. Plato, in his Menexenus, ascribes authorship to Pericles's companion, Aspasia.

Let's take a look at Deuteronomy 5 version of what "God spoke" about the Sabbath:
[sup] [/sup]“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. [sup]13 [/sup]Six days you shall labor and do all your work, [sup]14 [/sup]but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. [sup]15 [/sup]Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." -NIV

We don't know who wrote this version of the Words, but there is clearly a change. It's possible that the  tradition from which the Exodus 20 author and the Deuteronomy 5 author drew upon didn't have a rationale for keeping the Sabbath. One went with a 6 day creation narrative and the other the release from bondage narrative.

The unknown author of Hebrews seems to be aware of both rationales in his writing as quoted above. The rest not entered into which he refers to seems to be not believing in Jesus as the giver of rest. Sabbath is used as a metaphor.

In a previous post you quoted that rather anti-Semitic passage from John 8. So: 

31Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. 32You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34Jesus answered them, “Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. 35A bondservant doesn’t live in the house forever. A son remains forever. 36If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are Abraham’s offspring, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. 38I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father.”

-WEB

The Jews who Jesus was addressing were already believing Jesus. Then he seems to want to drive them away for some reason. They claim Abraham (like Christians do) rather than Moses. But then Jesus seems to claim that he can free people from sin, using the Exodus as a metaphor.

As Deuteronomy author changed the Law, what is there to prevent Christians from also changing the Law?

For instance.
"Remember the Sabbath day because Jesus has liberated us from the bondage to sin."

see Romans 14 (most agree that it was written by Paul, sometimes known as the Apostle to the Gentiles)

1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. 

-NIV

It seems obvious to me that there were already disputes going on about Sabbath observance in Paul's day. What exactly is his main point here? Don't go judging someone else's servant.

[FlyersFan]

 This is clearly manifested in their changing of the Ten Commandments—the complete removal of the 2nd commandment on idolatry, the changing of the 4th commandment to “The Lord’s Day”, meaning [Sun]day, and to maintain 10, the splitting of the 10th commandment in two, becoming the 9th and 10th.

Catholics didn't change it.  Protestants did.
The Catholic church is the original Christian church.
Documented in writing the word 'Catholic' used for the church as far back as 107AD.
(Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans - preserved by the Vatican and displayed)

The Bible was written by the Catholic church.
It was the Catholic Council of Carthedge in 397AD that decided what was going in and what wasn't.
It was that Catholic council that decided what was of God and what wasn't.
It was the Catholic council that picked Jewish text along with Catholic church documents to make the bible.

[FlyersFan]

And if you're worried about the Bible remaining unchanged, then you need to go back to the Catholic Bible.  Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was the guy who changed the Bible, threw out some of the original books, and so forth.

Martin Luther was a mess.
He wanted to be rid of the '10 Commandments' altogether because he said no one could obey them.
His protestant contemporaries talked him out of it.

Good reading - 'The Facts about Luther' by Msgr Patrick F. O'Hare.

Luther was a failed priest who couldn't follow the rules and wanted everyone else to fail as well.   His famous line - 'if the wife is unwilling then take the maid'.  He advocated molesting the hired help if the husband couldn't get his rocks off with his wife.

[FlyersFan]

No one has the authority to alter God's commandments—

Tell that to the protestants.
They added the word 'alone' ... sola scriptura.
They made it up.

[FlyersFan]

You Roman Catholics are filthy liars and twist Scripture to your own destruction. 

   Nope. 
The Catholic Church interpretation of scripture is just fine.
What group are you with?  7th Day Adventist?  Jehovahs Witness?
Kinda sounds like it.
Talk about twisting scripture ...

[FlyersFan]

Many historians believe the Book of Job may have been written as early as 1500 BC, or even earlier in approximately 2000–1500 BC. 

Incorrect.   As early as 600 bc, or as late as 200 bc.
You do understand that JOB didn't actually happen, right?
It's an allegory.  (like Noahs Ark .. didn't happen .. allegory)

[FlyersFan]

To know and love God is to obey.

Then you'd best become Catholic as soon as possible.  

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.   Jn 6:53–54

Only the Catholic Church has the priest with apostolic succession (Acts 1:21-26, Timothy 1:6 and 4:14) ... who have the authority granted them by Heaven itself (Matthew 16:18-19) to consecrate the bread and wine changing them into the Body and Blood of Christ Himself for consumption ... per the order of Christ at the Last Supper (“This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).)

If you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, you are lost.  That's the words of Christ.

So ... by your own words ... OBEY CHRIST .... go become Catholic and partake of the Eucharist in a worthy manner.  Considering your hatred of the Catholic church, that'll take some humility on your part to do so.   Humility, something God demands as well.

    I enjoyed this post.  Thanks for the opportunity to post it.