The Ten Commandments and the changed Roman Catholic version

[FlyersFan]

No. He did not want to change the Bible text.

Yeah .. he did. 
He wanted to be rid of the 10 commandments.
He couldn't live up to them so ... poof ... he wanted them gone.
He only left them in because the other so called 'reformers' told him to.
The guy was a stink'n mess.

Suggested reading - "The facts about Luther" by Msgr Patrick O'Hare.  Tan Publishing.

Oh ... and there is no such thing as 'sola scriptura'. 
That 'scripture alone' was added.

[Bootless]

Yeah .. he did. 
He wanted to be rid of the 10 commandments.
He couldn't live up to them so ... poof ... he wanted them gone.
He only left them in because the other so called 'reformers' told him to.
The guy was a stink'n mess.

Suggested reading - "The facts about Luther" by Msgr Patrick O'Hare.  Tan Publishing.

Oh ... and there is no such thing as 'sola scriptura'. 
That 'scripture alone' was added.

Now I must recant my previous statement about keeping the 10 Commandments out of catechism.
See: The Small Catechism

OH NO!!!!
The Lutherans number the 10 Commandments like the Catholics do,
And not the way that The Nationalist Churches of America do.

Here is a sample of Msgr Patrick O'Hare's book 1916 edition, pgs. 120-121 :

As might be expected from one who strove to minimize the importance and influence of the Law in the lives of men, Luther had scant respect for him whom God selected to proclaim His will to the peoples and the nations from Sion's Mount. This mouth-piece of God became the special subject of his untiring and ceaseless abuse and vituperation. He not only acknowledges his opposition to Moses, but he urges it with all the vehemence he is master of. He went so far in his antagonism that he proclaimed the Law-giver a most dangerous man and the embodiment of everything that can torment the soul. His hatred of the Prophet was so deep-rooted that on one occasion he cried out : "To the gallows with Moses." He disliked him because he thought that he insisted too strongly on the Law and its observance. In order to minimize his mission and destroy his influence he boldly and untruthfully asserted that Moses "was sent to the Jewish people only and had nothing whatever to do with Gentiles and Christians." His advice to all who bothered themselves with the Law-giver was to "chase that stammering and stuttering Moses," as he called him, "with his law to the Jews and not allow his terrible threats to intimidate them." "Moses must ever be looked upon," he says, "with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the Devil." (Comment, in Gal.) The scurrilous language applied to God's messenger reaches its depths of infamy when he says further: "I will not have Moses with his law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ ... we must put away thoughts and disputes about the law, whenever the conscience becomes terrified and feels God's anger against sin. Instead of that it will be better to sing, to eat, to drink, to sleep, to be merry in spite of the devil." (Tischr. L. C. 12. §. 17.) "No greater insult can be offered to Christ than to suppose that He has come to give commandments, to make a sort of Moses of him." (Tischr. S. 66). "Only the mad and blind Papists do such a thing." (Wittenb. V. 292 B.) "Christ's work consists in this: to fulfill the law for us, not to give laws to us and to redeem us." (Ibid.) "The devil makes of Christ a mere Moses." (Walch, VIII. 58.) 

Luther's teaching on the three uses of the law are not very complicated.

“What purposes does the Law then serve?”
 
First, the Law helps to control violent outbursts of sin and keeps order in the world (a curb).
 
Second, the Law accuses us and shows us our sin (a mirror).
 
Third, the Law teaches us Christians what we should and should not do to live a God-pleasing life (a guide).  The power to live according to the Law comes from the Gospel.”

So seriously, did God speak these words from Sinai to the World, or were they to the people brought out of Egypt to be repeated to their descendants?

And, did any of that actually happen, or is it a story that serves as an origin myth?

[FlyersFan]

And, did any of that actually happen, or is it a story that serves as an origin myth?

Exodus ... where 2 million Hebrew slaves left Egypt and lived in the desert for 40 years .. is myth.  ZERO evidence to support it.   What probably happened was a small group (few thousand? who knows) of low wage Hebrew workers left Egypt (there is debate as to if Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt).   

As for the 10 commandments ... Moses, being well educated, would have known about previous laws humans had in order to get along in society.   He could have easily taken those and manipulated them to fit the situation he was in.  I'm not saying that is what happened, because I wasn't there.  But it easily could have happened.

Christian point of view stating 10 Commandments were around before Moses - https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-co...nts-moses/

Secular point of view stating that much of the 10 Commandments (not the religious parts) were around before Moses and would have been known to educated people around the world - See the Code of Hammurabi.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Exodus ... where 2 million Hebrew slaves left Egypt and lived in the desert for 40 years .. is myth.  ZERO evidence to support it.   What probably happened was a small group (few thousand? who knows) of low wage Hebrew workers left Egypt (there is debate as to if Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt).   

Yes! My favorite narrative of "only a little truth" in the Torah!

What achaelogical evidence supports is Egpyt exited The Levant. They were there from 1550 to 1070. And then came back a few times after that. The Egyptian layer extends all the way into Syria.

What's more likely is Egypt lost influence gradually, and new lineages emerged from the Canaanites Egypt had controlled.

Is it any surprise that the New Kingdom scaling back their occupation between 1200 and 1070 resulted in new cultures resurging.

Like you have the Canaanites, no longer wanting to call themselves Canaanites, but Phoenicians, and have an 11th century linguistic divergence from proto-cannanite, later Jebusite, adopted by Philista, and finally diverged into Paleo-Hebrew around the 10th century. All of Proto-Canaanite etymology. 

So its likely a double rebranding of former Cannanites, that once lived under Egyptian rule, that became the disjointed "United Kingdom of Israel" Eventually.

Which is actually called "The Slum Layer" between the Jebusite (Canaanite) layer and the Assyrian layer.

Evidence suggests while The United Kingdom was sorta a thing, their building project may have been not so grand.  King David was of Canaanite descent, and the lineage to 12 tribes was something retconned (or exaggerated) in the 2nd Temple. The Monarchy of the 10th/9th century was low budget and tribal, amounting to makeshift huts and a band of chieftains. Later made more grand in the 7th century after Hebrew oral tradition was more defined. The First temple was overblown. It may have been a very basic slum building too And easily destroyed by Babylon if it ever existed. 

I will post this article again, because every person should read it. You dont have to agree. 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/rewriti...story-2567

“There was no violent event, no entry from the outside, not one suggestion of the Exodus. The Hebrews were the Canaanites, who had never left.”  - Israel Finklestein

And more to BS calling on The Exodus. It only needs one reductio ad absurdum too.

The Sinai is not very big. Its 222 miles as the crow flies from Tell el-Retabah or Pithom (the alleged general location of captivity) to Jerusalem. The peninsula, bounded by water on three sides, is the size of West Virginia.

Even conservative estimates, and what we know about ancient navigation, says they could walk 4 days a week, 8 miles each day walking, and made it the 222 miles in 7 weeks.

It like flat coastal plains, dunes, and the occasional marshland, its not very treacherous, unless you just want to die in arid mountain ranges and walk away from water at all costs.

So the question is, why didn't anyone question his leadership? I mean considering the actual distance, and time, they hypothetically progressed 5½ mile towards the promised land per year. Which is less than a mile every two months.

I made a map.

The Blue is what they should have done, and the red is my guess for what they did, according to Exodus. 

* You can't cross the Red Sea from Egypt, walk 50 days, and to get to Mt Sinai. You have to part the waters of the Gulf of Suez, which i imagine was also called The Red Sea back then.  



Moses may have been a device invented in The Post-Exilic 2nd Temple as well.

[Creaky]

Yeah .. he did. 
He wanted to be rid of the 10 commandments.
He couldn't live up to them so ... poof ... he wanted them gone.
He only left them in because the other so called 'reformers' told him to.
The guy was a stink'n mess.

Suggested reading - "The facts about Luther" by Msgr Patrick O'Hare.  Tan Publishing.

Oh ... and there is no such thing as 'sola scriptura'. 
That 'scripture alone' was added.

I am a Protestant so yeah
Luther was a bit of a mess, he wanted James out of the New Testament 
Having said that, hasn’t every Pope, the whole Roman Catholic Church been a bit of a mess

As for the 10 commandments, given to Moses to the Jews
As a Christian, I am in the Christ covenant, not subject to Judaic law
Your argument is dumb 
You can find reasons why Christian’s are not under the Mosaic law by simply searching google 

I also don’t believe the bible is perfect, happy to fill you in on what’s more corrupt, Roman Catholicism

[UltraBudgie]

As for the 10 commandments, given to Moses to the Jews
As a Christian, I am in the Christ covenant, not subject to Judaic law
Your argument is dumb 
You can find reasons why Christian’s are not under the Mosaic law by simply searching google 

You can find more information on the (what some consider) heresy you endorse by searching google, too. Keyword: "antinomianism"

In some Christian belief systems, an antinomian is one who takes the principle of salvation by faith and divine grace to the point of asserting that the saved are not bound to follow the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments.[2][3] Christian antinomians believe that faith alone guarantees humans' eternal security in Heaven regardless of one's actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

Considered by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and others as heretical.

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritua...anism.html

[Creaky]

You can find more information on the (what some consider) heresy you endorse by searching google, too. Keyword: "antinomianism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism

Considered by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and others as heretical.

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritua...anism.html

That’s all you can do Ultra, throw punches, get angry brother (anger is a sin)
I know what antinomianism is thanks but
A true believer with a contrite heart, the Holy Spirit would work on the Cristian command of love, antinomianism isn’t love 
Love Fulfills the Law[sup]8 [/sup]Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.[sup]9 [/sup]The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[sup][a][/sup] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[sup][b][/sup] [sup]10 [/sup]Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

interesting you refuse my question regarding fulfilling all Old Testament laws or just the ones you pick.

[FlyersFan]

Your argument is dumb 

You obviously don't know what my 'argument' is.
Learn how to read.

I stated the truth .... Luther wanted to change the bible and wanted the 10 commandments out.

And I never said that Christians are subject to those laws.  Not once.
So I don't know why you even bothered to bring it up and throw it in my face.
Christians don't have to follow any of those Old Testament laws.
They aren't for Christians.  They are for Hebrews.

neener neener.  

[quintessentone]

That’s all you can do Ultra, throw punches, get angry brother (anger is a sin)
I know what antinomianism is thanks but
A true believer with a contrite heart, the Holy Spirit would work on the Cristian command of love, antinomianism isn’t love 
Love Fulfills the Law[sup]8 [/sup]Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.[sup]9 [/sup]The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[sup][a][/sup] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[sup][b][/sup] [sup]10 [/sup]Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

interesting you refuse my question regarding fulfilling all Old Testament laws or just the ones you pick.

Didn't these commandments become manifest with Jesus and his teachings? If we take Jesus' core message which, to me, is charity and love are the way. Then doesn't charity and love encompass all those commandments? I think they do.

""Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.""

[Creaky]

Didn't these commandments become manifest with Jesus and his teachings? If we take Jesus' core message which, to me, is charity and love are the way. Then doesn't charity and love encompass all those commandments? I think they do.

""Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.""

Yes they certainly do
my point is Inam not subject to Jewish laws, be they civil, ceremonial or moral, subject to love as the law.
though, I am in grace if I fail