|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ten Commandments
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
And, in the CofE at least, rather more frequently in the past (C17/18/19?).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The church where I play had the two wall plaques with the Ten Commandments restored in the very early 1950s - then c1966 they were removed and put into storage.
There is now a move to have them reinstalled: the spaces they occupied are still vacant and they would enhance the interior of the church because they are very beautiful. The trouble is the DAC which is fighting their reinstatement.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, Talmudic Judaism distinguishes between the Noahide Laws (ultimately a reference to Genesis 9, but expanded a bit in the Talmud) - which are the principles of morality given to all nations - and the Mosaic Law, which exists to mark out the Jews as the Chosen People.
It is argued that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is in effect reaffirming the Noahide Laws (rather than the Torah) as binding on Christians (or at least on Gentile converts), which does raise the question of why we don't elevate them instead of the Ten Commandments.
Acts 15 describes a dispute within the early Church over whether the Mosaic Law should apply to Gentile Christians. (It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians.) The decision of the Council was that Gentile Christians should "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." So at least at that time, the leaders of the Church including many who had known Jesus personally did not consider the Law to have been mooted as to Jewish Christians, nor any other part of it except three laws about food and one about sex to apply to Gentiles. That seems inconsistent with both the Noahide theory and the supersessionist theory.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, Talmudic Judaism distinguishes between the Noahide Laws (ultimately a reference to Genesis 9, but expanded a bit in the Talmud) - which are the principles of morality given to all nations - and the Mosaic Law, which exists to mark out the Jews as the Chosen People.
It is argued that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is in effect reaffirming the Noahide Laws (rather than the Torah) as binding on Christians (or at least on Gentile converts), which does raise the question of why we don't elevate them instead of the Ten Commandments.
Acts 15 describes a dispute within the early Church over whether the Mosaic Law should apply to Gentile Christians. (It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians.) The decision of the Council was that Gentile Christians should "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." So at least at that time, the leaders of the Church including many who had known Jesus personally did not consider the Law to have been mooted as to Jewish Christians, nor any other part of it except three laws about food and one about sex to apply to Gentiles. That seems inconsistent with both the Noahide theory and the supersessionist theory.
Peter did remark at the time, though, that the Mosaic Law was very difficult even for Jews to obey fully. I wonder whether the Old Covenant/New Covenant theology didn't develop out of the obvious tensions that must have arisen when some Christians were expected to observe the old laws while others were not. It would have been reasonable to extend Peter's argument for leniency toward Gentiles to Jews as well, given that both groups shared a faith in the superiority of Jesus's teachings, and the doctrine of a New Covenant would have provided a justification to do so. That wouldn't explain, though, why the Ten Commandments continued to be held in such special regard.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess the point of keeping some laws (eg. Thou shalt not kill) is also that other people won't be dead.
The Bible gives a different reason. Somewhere in Moses God explains murder is wrong because destroying a human being is destroying an image of God.
Very different framework.
I suspect stealing is wrong in God's eyes not just because it is unloving but because you are turning away from recognizing God as the source of whatever you need. False witness similarly.
If we will relate to God as we are designed to for our best health, all these things become automatic and cheerful, we see and enjoy God in everything, and through that enjoy and appreciate all other people.
Somehow. I often wonder how we will all get along in heaven when we can't now. I guess God still believes in miracles.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
That wouldn't explain, though, why the Ten Commandments continued to be held in such special regard.
If that's all you're after, it's pretty easy I think. The Ten Commandments are the Law in a nutshell--they cover the ground pretty thoroughly (even the ceremonial ones, but that's another long, long post), they do it in a short, easily memorized form, they are repeated twice so they must be important ![[Biased]](wink.gif) (Ex. 20, Deut. 5). Moreover, they are the first thing God said to Israel from Sinai at the giving of the Law. Not even a "Ladies and gentlemen, please listen up" to start off beforehand.
So if you were an ancient Israelite attempting to teach your children, this is the handy passage you'd naturally start with. Very useful in catechetical work. The rest can follow.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
This reminds me of a passage in "The Lord of the Rings". Wikipedia describes the Shire as "a voluntarily orderly society" and tells us:
"The Hobbits of the Shire generally obeyed the Rules...and there was no real need to enforce them; all Hobbits voluntarily obeyed them as they were both ancient and just. Hobbits had lawyers, but these dealt mostly with wills and such matters; there is no record of a formal court system, still less of criminal prosecutions or punishments. Frodo stated that in the Shire no Hobbit had ever been known intentionally to kill another Hobbit."
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The church where I play had the two wall plaques with the Ten Commandments restored in the very early 1950s - then c1966 they were removed and put into storage.
There is now a move to have them reinstalled: the spaces they occupied are still vacant and they would enhance the interior of the church because they are very beautiful. The trouble is the DAC which is fighting their reinstatement.
Why? That's quite puzzling. If you're all really keen to get them back in, you might want to think of enlisting the Georgian Society, the Victorian Society or whichever era's heritage organisation might be most interested.
When one removes something, one is often told to keep it because a future generation might want to use it again. Here, you're wanting to do this. It seems odd that you're being discouraged.
Very often, one board would have the 10 Commandments, and another, the Apostle's Creed.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, Talmudic Judaism distinguishes between the Noahide Laws (ultimately a reference to Genesis 9, but expanded a bit in the Talmud) - which are the principles of morality given to all nations - and the Mosaic Law, which exists to mark out the Jews as the Chosen People.
It is argued that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is in effect reaffirming the Noahide Laws (rather than the Torah) as binding on Christians (or at least on Gentile converts), which does raise the question of why we don't elevate them instead of the Ten Commandments.
Acts 15 describes a dispute within the early Church over whether the Mosaic Law should apply to Gentile Christians. (It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians.) The decision of the Council was that Gentile Christians should "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." So at least at that time, the leaders of the Church including many who had known Jesus personally did not consider the Law to have been mooted as to Jewish Christians, nor any other part of it except three laws about food and one about sex to apply to Gentiles. That seems inconsistent with both the Noahide theory and the supersessionist theory.
'It is argued' was a hedge for 'I'm sure I read somewhere'. Looking online I'm struggling to find a source that isn't blatantly partisan and/or somebody's blog, so I might be talking nonsense here.
Regarding the assertion that 'It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians' - what is the evidence for this? I've seen it before so I know you haven't just made it up, but I've just re-read Galatians and Romans and to me the most natural reading does seem to be that neither Jews nor Gentiles are required any more to keep the Law. I might just be reading what I expect to see of course.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess the point of keeping some laws (eg. Thou shalt not kill) is also that other people won't be dead.
The Bible gives a different reason. Somewhere in Moses God explains murder is wrong because destroying a human being is destroying an image of God.
Very different framework.
I suspect stealing is wrong in God's eyes not just because it is unloving but because you are turning away from recognizing God as the source of whatever you need. False witness similarly.
If we will relate to God as we are designed to for our best health, all these things become automatic and cheerful, we see and enjoy God in everything, and through that enjoy and appreciate all other people.
Exactly. This, I think, is the way Jesus reshapes our understanding of the Law in the Sermon on the mount. Not by declaring it irrelevant, but by showing us the purpose and intent-- causing us to look at it not as some arbitrary set of rules to measure our righteousness, but rather a set of heart attitudes that transform us into the people we were always meant to be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Regarding the assertion that 'It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians' - what is the evidence for this? I've seen it before so I know you haven't just made it up, but I've just re-read Galatians and Romans and to me the most natural reading does seem to be that neither Jews nor Gentiles are required any more to keep the Law. I might just be reading what I expect to see of course. [/QB]
Acts 15:1-5 says:
"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' "
It does not say explicitly that Jewish Christians were expected to obey the Law, but it does not make any sense that they would have demanded that Gentiles obey laws they themselves did not.
Paul's letters to the (largely Gentile) Galatians and Romans reflected his own personal views. In the debate at Jerusalem, however, he was opposed by the Jewish legalist faction who felt that the Law should still apply, not only to Jews, but to Gentiles as well.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]Acts 15 describes a dispute within the early Church over whether the Mosaic Law should apply to Gentile Christians. (It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians.) The decision of the Council was that Gentile Christians should "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." So at least at that time, the leaders of the Church including many who had known Jesus personally did not consider the Law to have been mooted as to Jewish Christians, nor any other part of it except three laws about food and one about sex to apply to Gentiles. That seems inconsistent with both the Noahide theory and the supersessionist theory.
'It is argued' was a hedge for 'I'm sure I read somewhere'. Looking online I'm struggling to find a source that isn't blatantly partisan and/or somebody's blog, so I might be talking nonsense here.
Regarding the assertion that 'It was taken for granted that the Law still applied to Jewish Christians' - what is the evidence for this? I've seen it before so I know you haven't just made it up, but I've just re-read Galatians and Romans and to me the most natural reading does seem to be that neither Jews nor Gentiles are required any more to keep the Law. I might just be reading what I expect to see of course.
The evidence is in Acts 15-- which is describing an event that takes place prior to Galatians and Romans. The context of Acts 15 doesn't make sense w/o the realization that the early, mostly Jewish, Christians assumed the Law was still binding. Gal. and Rom., written after that event, would of course have a different context-- they are written to a church that has already had the benefit of the Jerusalem Council and one that was rapidly becoming more and more Gentile in composition.
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision. It's not hard to see why "keeping the Law" is a much more urgent question for the new Gentile converts than it was for the early Jewish Christians. My sense is that the early Jewish Christians didn't see the Law as so much of a burden as we often portray it, but more as a gift and an identity-- something that set them apart from the polytheistic neighbors. Which again, is part of that underlying Jewish v Gentile tension you find in Acts 15. The remarkable thing is that the Spirit was able to work in and thru that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Belle Ringer: I suspect stealing is wrong in God's eyes not just because it is unloving but because you are turning away from recognizing God as the source of whatever you need. False witness similarly.
If we will relate to God as we are designed to for our best health, all these things become automatic and cheerful, we see and enjoy God in everything, and through that enjoy and appreciate all other people.
Well it is this that I reject, more and more.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The evidence is in Acts 15-- which is describing an event that takes place prior to Galatians and Romans. The context of Acts 15 doesn't make sense w/o the realization that the early, mostly Jewish, Christians assumed the Law was still binding. Gal. and Rom., written after that event, would of course have a different context-- they are written to a church that has already had the benefit of the Jerusalem Council and one that was rapidly becoming more and more Gentile in composition.
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
Although Acts does describe events prior to the composition of the epistles mentioned, it was written about three decades or so (given the most likely chronology) after those epistles. There's always the possibility that the author decided what "[t]he real kicker" was based on controversies of the day rather than what was controversial at the time.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Belle Ringer: I suspect stealing is wrong in God's eyes not just because it is unloving but because you are turning away from recognizing God as the source of whatever you need. False witness similarly.
If we will relate to God as we are designed to for our best health, all these things become automatic and cheerful, we see and enjoy God in everything, and through that enjoy and appreciate all other people.
Well it is this that I reject, more and more.
LeRoc, I'm sorry. I can't follow this.
Those are strong words, but what are you rejecting? Are you saying you reject the notion that it's wrong for us to steal? That it's bad for us to steal? Or are you rejecting the notion that God's guidance helps us to live a life that is actually better? And if so, are you saying we should just obey the rules because God says we must? Or are you saying that following a right way is an antiquated notion altogether and we should do what we like?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The evidence is in Acts 15-- which is describing an event that takes place prior to Galatians and Romans. The context of Acts 15 doesn't make sense w/o the realization that the early, mostly Jewish, Christians assumed the Law was still binding. Gal. and Rom., written after that event, would of course have a different context-- they are written to a church that has already had the benefit of the Jerusalem Council and one that was rapidly becoming more and more Gentile in composition.
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
Although Acts does describe events prior to the composition of the epistles mentioned, it was written about three decades or so (given the most likely chronology) after those epistles. There's always the possibility that the author decided what "[t]he real kicker" was based on controversies of the day rather than what was controversial at the time.
Yes, I was aware of the difference in dating, which is why I was careful to say the event preceded Gal. & Rom, not the recording of the event. And yes, there is always that possibility that history gets rewritten in that way. But in this case, that doesn't seem to fit what we know of the make-up of the early church and the growth of the Gentile church, at least as reflected in the NT writings.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: Those are strong words, but what are you rejecting?
What I'm rejecting is that the emphasis in this is too much on me. It's about what I do, and how God reacts to this, and what will happen to me because of that.
My neighbour (the one I'm killing, the one I'm stealing from) does figure in this story ... somewhere. But it is more as a sideshow, an afterthought almost.
What matters to me in the first place is not that not stealing will make me better. What is more important is that this is better for the person I'm not stealing from.
And if I do steal, the most important part to me isn't that I repent towards God. What matters at least at much is that I make amends with the person I've stolen from. I have the feeling that our neighbour is so often forgotten when we talk about things like sin and forgiveness.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Enoch: Those are strong words, but what are you rejecting?
What I'm rejecting is that the emphasis in this is too much on me. It's about what I do, and how God reacts to this, and what will happen to me because of that.
OK, I can see how you get that interpretation. No, there's something more basic going on - it's not about the effects on others of one murder or slander at a time so long as I make it right by ask God's forgiveness so *I* can be well off in spite of leaving a wake of ruined lives behind me.
The opposite: it's not about me, it's about God, who is the source of health and life for all we meet and reflect a bit of God to. Mirrors don't work to reflect light or strive to please anyone by reflecting, it's just the definition of a mirror that they do reflect. Spiritually healthy people reflect God.
If we grow into full spiritual healthy awareness of who God is -- truly the source of all we need -- we are set free to NOT be me-focused, not a thought of taking from others to meet our own needs. Nor is there any striving to please God because we know God IS and God LOVES, we can relax in God instead of worrying about whether God accepts us.
Then we are free to see something of God in every person we meet. We naturally reach out to all others with appreciation and desire for their welbeing because that's just who we are - not trying to earn brownie points with God (you don't need brownie points if you are secure in God!) but because we have become like God in having a personality that values each person no matter how they treat us.
If you value someone, you don't lie about them, steal from them, murder them; doesn't even cross your mind to do such a thing, dissing an image of God!
quote:
I have the feeling that our neighbour is so often forgotten when we talk about things like sin and forgiveness.
A lot of people seem to be looking for forgiveness for themselves *without* restitution to the neighbor they hurt, treating forgiveness as a way to avoid punishment for wrongdoing while keeping the illicit gains. (To make it worse, "God, please forgive me" is sometimes coupled with "but punish that person who mistreated me!")
"Forgive me while I go rip off my neighbor" is not the Christian message; neither is "forgive me but punish him."
What I'm talking about is quite different. If we learn to see God reflected in each person, and learn to see God being hurt by any hurt we do to that image, if we love God we love the image - each person. You automatically and sincerely forgive that person for any harm he did to you -- not to gain brownie points with God but because you, like God, long to see that person restored to spiritual health, and forgiving him (setting him free from any consequences of his wronging you) is an important tool helping their spiritual healing.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
It does not say explicitly that Jewish Christians were expected to obey the Law, but it does not make any sense that they would have demanded that Gentiles obey laws they themselves did not.
I read that as suggesting there was a faction within the church that thought everyone should apply the Torah, but that this was subject to debate, i.e. not taken for granted. To my mind, the comment in Galatians 2:14 that Peter lived like a Gentile, in context, suggests that Peter did not follow the Torah.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
I'd have thought that circumcision for Jewish Christians would have been a moot point, since most of them would already have had it done when they were eight days old and Christ was just a little boy making birds out of mud pies ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
It does not say explicitly that Jewish Christians were expected to obey the Law, but it does not make any sense that they would have demanded that Gentiles obey laws they themselves did not.
I read that as suggesting there was a faction within the church that thought everyone should apply the Torah, but that this was subject to debate, i.e. not taken for granted. To my mind, the comment in Galatians 2:14 that Peter lived like a Gentile, in context, suggests that Peter did not follow the Torah.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
I'd have thought that circumcision for Jewish Christians would have been a moot point, since most of them would already have had it done when they were eight days old and Christ was just a little boy making birds out of mud pies ...
Yes, it was only a faction, not the consensus of the whole Church. Among that faction, though, obeying the Torah was taken for granted, a fundamental belief, and Jews were the largest faction of the Church in its earliest years before Paul's ministry to the Gentiles gathered momentum. How to accommodate Gentile converts was the first doctrinal controversy so deep that it required convening a formal Council to resolve. Yet the resolution apparently reached by the Council (that Gentiles were excused from most Jewish law, but still needed to obey three of the laws concerning food and one concerning sex in order to be saved) apparently had no lasting influence on subsequent doctrine -- except perhaps broadly, as an intermediate stepping stone in a larger trend away from Torah obedience as a point of doctrine altogether. (Of course, the tension between legalism and antinomianism has survived in one form or another to the present day, but that's another discussion.)
The question of circumcision certainly did not trouble Jews who had already been circumcised as infants -- it was perhaps the only law that it would have been impossible for them to disobey. It must have been an especially daunting impediment to adult Gentile converts, however.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
I'd have thought that circumcision for Jewish Christians would have been a moot point, since most of them would already have had it done when they were eight days old and Christ was just a little boy making birds out of mud pies ...
It would be a moot point for those already more than 8 days old Jewish Christians, but surely in the talk of law and freedom from law some debates were about circumcising babies of Jewish Christians.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The real kicker in Acts 15, of course, is circumcision.
I'd have thought that circumcision for Jewish Christians would have been a moot point, since most of them would already have had it done when they were eight days old and Christ was just a little boy making birds out of mud pies ...
Yes, that was my point. That's why, as I said, the issue doesn't really come up until you start having Gentile converts, in particular, adult male Gentile converts.
[thou shalt preview post]
[ 28. July 2015, 15:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Fausto, cliffdweller - fair enough, I don't think we're in particular disagreement then.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
.... you know it WOULD come up if you were still in your childbearing years, and had sons. Or grandsons.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... you know it WOULD come up if you were still in your childbearing years, and had sons. Or grandsons.
I doubt it did for Jewish Christians-- just as it didn't for several generations of Americans. When I had my sons, it was a minor blip but didn't receive the amount of consideration I would give it today. These sorts of engrained cultural norms can be incredibly powerful. So no, I don't think 1st c Jewish Christians spent any time at all worrying about whether they should circumcise their sons or grandsons. Acts 15 seems to support the notion that it was adult male Gentile converts who first raised the "wait... you want me to do what?!?" flag.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sure they did. But the overflow from that argument would probably trickle into the all-Jewish families.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sure they did. But the overflow from that argument would probably trickle into the all-Jewish families.
Possibly, but I don't see that in Acts 15 at all. I don't see any indication that the early Jewish Christians were all that perturbed by keeping the Law. And I certainly don't see any indication there was any of our modern angst about potentially harming small infants by circumcising them. I'm sure they could appreciate and empathize with the dilemma facing adult male Gentile converts, but I honestly doubt that extended to considering whether they were mistreating their own infants. Again, looking at the prevalent custom of circumcision among non-Jewish Americans, which was sustained for a long time with relatively little medical justification and no religious compulsion at all, and even now is only beginning to waver, I think we're over-reading our own experience into the 1st c to think Jewish parents would have any similar qualms.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think there is a commandment missing.
I think we should keep ten, but remove “You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's.”
and replace it with -
"You shall not be a jerk. Jerkish behavior includes (but is not limited to): racism, sexism and all the other negative -isms."
Which is third only to Jesus' two imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think not being a jerk is part of loving your neighbor as yourself.
You've got to admit the evidence is in favour of it having to be spelled out...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, the point of keeping the Law is not to make ourselves "good enough" for God or avoid some divine punishment. The point of keeping the Law is that we come to trust in God enough to recognize that doing life his way-- i.e. loving God and others-- is the best possible life for us. The fact that others who don't happen to be part of our tribe also often come to recognize that only makes life living in a diverse community that much better.
To pickup your point about sabbath - I used to work in human resources, the field has done lots of studies -- if you will take a day off from work to do things you enjoy, like sports or arts or family time, your productivity for the week is higher than if you work all 7 days even though you work more hours the weeks you skip sabbath.
So says science. Catching up with God.
When I was a strict Sabbatarian I never felt so knackered, particularly on a Saturday. With the legalistically imposed stress of it all.
I kept the Sabbath (on a Sunday) for years. At the time I was both studying and working, but both were part-time. I found that I had plenty of half-days of work or leisure, but no full days of anything. So I wiped Sunday off my calendar.
On Sundays I just stayed around home, no shopping, no restaurants, no going anywhere I couldn't walk to - and no spending money (and no going to church, either!).
I have vague memories of childhood Sundays in south Wales; no playing outside the garden and no noisiness - just because it's Sunday. My mum was also reluctant to put washing on the line (she claims now), because of her mother-in-law's nit-picking ways.
Unlike Martin60, I found it very restful, perhaps (as Enoch suggested) it was because I did it for myself, and not for any outside agency like a church or law.
As for the Ten Commandments, my brother and I were discussing them, and we tried to list them out and came up with eleven! I think the confusion arose from only having one God and not worshiping others, as well as the prohibition on making and worshiping graven images could be construed as either two or three different commandments.
I am uncomfortable with the obsession of some segments of US society in displaying these laws in public spaces and then claiming they are the 'foundation' of our society's laws. Killing, lying (under oath) and stealing sure, but there is NO LAW AGAINST covetousness or adultery. There's no law requiring us to honour our parents, either. And graven images? Come on. people! They are everywhere, in our churches, on our money, in the shops, at home, on the telly and the Internet - everywhere!
There's nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments, but the reality is that they've never really been able to wholly integrate with civic law - despite the widespread view that they are the ten basic laws that keeps any society from chaos.
I do find the whole 24/7 thing as exhausting as it is convenient. As a youngster, I couldn't stand Sundays with shortened pub hours and shops all shut, but in hindsight (a wonderful thing), it gave a rhythm to the week that is now completely lost in many places.
Up until the mid-80s TV in New Zealand was ad-free on Sundays (and everything was shut, since Saturday afternoon, even). The adverts were introduced, despite public opposition, and they were only placed between programmes - at first - but now it's Harvey Fucking Norman blaring out all the live long day - including Sundays!
Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it holy? Ha! I don't think so.
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There did use to be laws against adultery, certain kinds of Sabbath-breaking, and so forth. Not that I'm arguing that American law is directly based on the 10 commandments, mind you. But they've had a heavy influence.
I rather like the one (two) about coveting, as they force me to think about heart attitudes and not merely about external actions. Coveting is one of those sins I personally would never have recognized as a sin without this extra kick in the rear. But it does a helluva lot of damage.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think not being a jerk is part of loving your neighbor as yourself.
You've got to admit the evidence is in favour of it having to be spelled out...
You have a point. If "don't murder" had to be spelled out, why not "don't be racist/sexist/etc"? But if "don't murder" did have to be spelled out, maybe God figured he had to take one step at a time starting with the most basic. If you're going to be racist, at least don't be killing, stealing, slandering in the process!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
You have a point. If "don't murder" had to be spelled out, why not "don't be racist/sexist/etc"?
Except "don't murder" didn't really need to be spelled out. The last six (or seven, depending on how you divide them up) commandments are the usual rules against murder, theft, and impertinence that humans tend to independently come up with over and over again when organizing their societies. You could argue that this is because God "embedded" these values in people or some other mystical mumbo-jumbo explanation, but the point is that those particular commandments don't seem to require direct divine revelation.
The first four (or three, again depending on your numbering system), on the other hand, are very specifically about religious practices and represent a distinct minority viewpoint. Things like "religious toleration is bad" or "don't worship graven images" or "this is your official day off" don't seem to pop up independently.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
You have a point. If "don't murder" had to be spelled out, why not "don't be racist/sexist/etc"?
Except "don't murder" didn't really need to be spelled out. The last six (or seven, depending on how you divide them up) commandments are the usual rules against murder, theft, and impertinence that humans tend to independently come up with over and over again when organizing their societies. You could argue that this is because God "embedded" these values in people or some other mystical mumbo-jumbo explanation, but the point is that those particular commandments don't seem to require direct divine revelation.
The first four (or three, again depending on your numbering system), on the other hand, are very specifically about religious practices and represent a distinct minority viewpoint. Things like "religious toleration is bad" or "don't worship graven images" or "this is your official day off" don't seem to pop up independently.
I think Jesus does a great job of parsing each of them, including murder, in the sermon on the mount. None of us thinks we're going to have to worry about murdering someone. But Jesus points us to the heart attitudes that put us on the road to murder-- hatred, which leads to contempt, which leads to dehumanizing the enemy, which allows us to contemplate what for us by that time won't seem at all like murder... Jesus tells us to stop it in the heart when we first move toward hatred.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think Jesus does a great job
I would worry about you if you didn't.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think Jesus does a great job
I would worry about you if you didn't.
Yes, I'm sure Jesus is relieved to know I approve of his job performance!
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm sure He's a lot more confident now about His annual performance review.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[thinks for a moment]
It's a family business--surely the owner's son never gets reviewed?
Of course not. As usual in these situations, Dad looks the other way and lets him do whatever he wants, and everyone else has to treat him like he walks on water.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You could argue that this is because God "embedded" these values in people or some other mystical mumbo-jumbo explanation, but the point is that those particular commandments don't seem to require direct divine revelation.
You could also argue that this is because God wanted to let us know that they were not merely for the sake of civilized society.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You could argue that this is because God "embedded" these values in people or some other mystical mumbo-jumbo explanation, but the point is that those particular commandments don't seem to require direct divine revelation.
You could also argue that if there IS a creator of human beings, any seemingly self-evident knowledge of any sort was obviously placed there by him--whether it's knowledge of the moral Law or an instinct to protect one's own children. What you suggest makes no sense unless you postulate that the ultimate source of wisdom and the ultimate source of human life (however it got here) are two separate entities.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I used to believe the Bible as writ with about the only caveat being there were four trillion days of creation. Therefore Exodus was history. The Red Sea was parted and crossed 1443 BC using Biblical chronology.
That God wrote the Decalogue with His finger. The God who 40 years later stopped slaughtering Israelites guilty of the Heresy of Peor - demon worshipping with excrement - at twenty four thousand only after Phinehas kebabed Zimri and Cozbi in coitus. Some offering. Ian M. Banks couldn't have come up with that one. To the God who commanded the genocide of the Amalekites.
In my complete and utter theodicy of such a God, a God Jesus HAD to believe in I understand still, I kept Sabbath and defended South Africa as they were Israelite.
Was there any of God in the metanarrative of the Old Covenant and its myth upon myth? More so than in the Enuma Elish and all the other myths of redemptive violence since while humanity tried to communicate with the weather?
It would seem so. Only so. I still see God's minimalist hand at work in such profoundly beautiful vignettes as Job, the story of Joseph, Nathan before David, The Fiery Furnace, Jonah above all. Prior to Jesus of course. Transcendent Love shines through the blood and fire and shit and smoke and our fearful, ignorant projection back on it.
As it all does in The Ten Commandments.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I used to believe the Bible as writ with about the only caveat being there were four trillion days of creation. Therefore Exodus was history. The Red Sea was parted and crossed 1443 BC using Biblical chronology.
That God wrote the Decalogue with His finger. The God who 40 years later stopped slaughtering Israelites guilty of the Heresy of Peor - demon worshipping with excrement - at twenty four thousand only after Phinehas kebabed Zimri and Cozbi in coitus. Some offering. Ian M. Banks couldn't have come up with that one. To the God who commanded the genocide of the Amalekites.
In my complete and utter theodicy of such a God, a God Jesus HAD to believe in I understand still, I kept Sabbath and defended South Africa as they were Israelite.
Was there any of God in the metanarrative of the Old Covenant and its myth upon myth? More so than in the Enuma Elish and all the other myths of redemptive violence since while humanity tried to communicate with the weather?
It would seem so. Only so. I still see God's minimalist hand at work in such profoundly beautiful vignettes as Job, the story of Joseph, Nathan before David, The Fiery Furnace, Jonah above all. Prior to Jesus of course. Transcendent Love shines through the blood and fire and shit and smoke and our fearful, ignorant projection back on it.
As it all does in The Ten Commandments.
I think the proper way to read the Old Testament is as a record of "progressive revelation" -- a more-or-less chronological and contemporaneous human witness to the growing human apprehension, across the span of history and the rise and fall of civilizations, of God's true character. Therefore, the earlier elements of the testimony present a less complete, less accurate, view of God's character (as seen through the lens of their time and place) than the later ones. In that context, the report of Moses's insights on Sinai represents a towering milestone and sudden advance in the course of our maturing apprehension.
But the issue I am struggling with is why, if Jesus ushered in a "new covenant" based in grace rather than transactional obedience, so many Christians still observe the Ten Commandments as if they were not merely wise and practical ethical principles but binding legal obligations, when they freely dismiss nearly all the other 600+ Jewish commandments as lapsed.
In an earlier post I said that the tension between legalism and antinomianism that we see popping up in various forms throughout Christian history is a topic for a different discussion, but perhaps I was wrong about that and it is really at the heart of this discussion.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But the issue I am struggling with is why, if Jesus ushered in a "new covenant" based in grace rather than transactional obedience, so many Christians still observe the Ten Commandments as if they were not merely wise and practical ethical principles but binding legal obligations ...
I find Jesus' commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." far, far, far, far harder to keep than any of the 10 OT ones! In fact, the 10 Cs are pretty simple for and ordinary person to keep imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
But the issue I am struggling with is why, if Jesus ushered in a "new covenant" based in grace rather than transactional obedience, so many Christians still observe the Ten Commandments as if they were not merely wise and practical ethical principles but binding legal obligations, when they freely dismiss nearly all the other 600+ Jewish commandments as lapsed.
Okay, here's where I'm not understanding you, I think. What precisely do you mean by "binding legal obligations"?
You could be referring to "legal" as in "this-world legal," i.e. government, but I doubt that. I think you are referring to God's dealings with people, not government (even theocratic) dealings with people.
In that case, it seems to me that you are taking the whole subject of God's relationship to people and reducing it to a purely legal model--as opposed to (say) a parent-child model, a master-servant model, or a creator-creature model.
IMHO that is a mistake. A model is not the same as the thing itself. Every model expresses important truths about its subject, but equally it misses out other truths that don't fit with it. That's why we need multiple models if we want to understand something as complicated as God's dealings with people--no one human model is going to cover it all.
In this case, it seems to me that you are taking the legal model (God as lawgiver and judge; we as the people who must keep the law and who will be punished if we do not) and taking that to be the whole truth about Christianity. Which is not true. You're wondering why so many Christians treasure and obey the Ten Commandments while ignoring the rest. It makes no sense to you in terms of your legal model, because of course, in THAT model, ALL laws must be obeyed. One does not pick and choose. There is no basis for picking and choosing within the legal model. So this behavior is incomprehensible to you.
You've just discovered a gaping hole in your legal model--fine, all models have them. What you want to do is supplement your legal model with some of the other models out there--in this case, I'd suggest the parent/child model. If you ask the same question (Why do some Christians treat the 10 C as more important than the rest of the laws?) to THIS model, you will get an answer. And that answer has to do with the emotional aspects of the parent/child relationship (which are totally unaccounted-for by the legal model).
In the parent/child relationship, there are also laws, rules, call it what you like, propagated by the parent and obeyed (we hope) by the child. But these rules are of two different sorts.
The first kind is the universal, forever-true, forever-to-be-obeyed kind: Don't hit your sister, Don't run out into the street without looking, Don't steal sweets from the corner shop, Be kind to the dog, Study hard.
The second kind are provisional rules, which must be obeyed only under certain circumstances: Don't eat in the living room (except when the living room is being remodeled, or when you are sick and watching TV); Don't omit to do your homework (except when a family crisis like a death or moving house has made it wholly ridiculous to expect that effort from you); Do your piano practice as soon as you get home from school (before the age of roughly 14 or so; at a certain point you are old enough and responsible enough to make your own decisions about practice time, and this rule will be allowed to lapse).
In the parent/child model, it's easy to see why the second set of rules would be allowed to lapse over time--the child has increasing judgment, the parent trusts them to make good decisions now, and the rule can be quietly dropped. But the first set of rules continues forever--both because they are fundamental principles of the universe (oncoming cars will kill an adult just as easily as a child) and because they offer the child a way to please his Mom and Dad. For instance, the "Study hard" thing was still in force when I was in my early thirties and received my PhD. A big part of the pleasure of that day was made by seeing my parents' faces as I graduated. They were pleased, and that pleased me. That's how love works.
But you'll only ever see that dynamic if you step outside the legal model and go to a different model, like the parent/child one.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
