Why do Christians care so much about the Ten Commandments?

[giblets]

Its not just other gods per se but the blending of Babylonian/sumerian creation stories. The Yahweh creation story speaks of a singular God creating universe, matter life etc. via force of will by speaking things into existence. The Elohist creation story (Adam and Eve) speaks of the creation of man and universe via the pantheon of gods via a more intimate process of creating man from earth by hand. Two differing modes of creation. The Elohist creation story is a oral derivation of ancient sumerian legend as are parts of the Yahweh creation story (order of creation etc.).

I think you're mixing up "Yahwist" and "Elohist". Other than that you're right.

[giblets]

Acts 15 seems to describe a debate among the apostles about whether gentiles should follow jewish law... and they seem to arrive at the following conclusion:

[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

Now this does bear some similarity to the Ten Commandments, because it says not to commit adultery or worship idols, but it clearly isn't the Ten Commandments.

[notyoueither]

Okay...So to return to my intial comment to HC: the 10(17) Commandments are not important from a legal standpoint. They are only important insomuch as they were part of a religious group that subverts the state. Only 3 of those commandments are done at a national level(4 if you're in the Military), and other religious groups have managed to figure those out without to 10(17) Commandments.

Ah.

HC said legal history.

[Al B. Sure!]

To be honest, I think adultery should be criminalized to an extent if it is provable. Maybe nothing with jail time but maybe a fine or community service. Adultery is a ****ed up thing to do and is inexcusable in today's age of no fault turbo-divorces.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I think you're mixing up "Yahwist" and "Elohist".

Yes transposed.

[Lonestar]

Where in the New Testament are christians told to follow the law?
I have cited just a few places where the opposite is told.
Read Romans 7 in it's entirely, following the law will even lead to sinning, Paul says there. Not b/c the law is bad but b/c we are.

Matthew 5:17

17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus explicitly says that you should continue to follow the Law and the Prophets, and that it would be a Bad Idea(tm) to not do so.

[Berzerker]

Jesus was talking about the 2 commandments he gave - love God and love others

I think

[Lonestar]

Jesus was talking about the 2 commandments he gave - love God and love others

I think

17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill

He says he is not here to overturn the Law(which doesn't merely include the Commandments, but also no eating pork, wearing polycotton, etc) but to fulfill it. In other words, he is pretty clearly stating that old Jewish Law is not to be viewed as expired.


Most Christians are Pauline Christians, which says "nu-uh Paul had a vision that means we can eat pork now!". Of course, ditching the Jewish dietary laws conviently makes Christianity more appealing to potential converts.

[Barnabas]

Matthew 5:17



Jesus explicitly says that you should continue to follow the Law and the Prophets, and that it would be a Bad Idea(tm) to not do so.

Either that is wrong or Jesus contradicted himself, since for example he did not follow the law regarding stoning adulterous women, and he said that the Law of Moses which allowed for divorces was plain wrong except for the case of infidelity.

[Lonestar]

Either that is wrong or Jesus contradicted himself,

There is also a third possibility...

[Imran Siddiqui]

He says he is not here to overturn the Law(which doesn't merely include the Commandments, but also no eating pork, wearing polycotton, etc) but to fulfill it. In other words, he is pretty clearly stating that old Jewish Law is not to be viewed as expired.

Most Christians are Pauline Christians, which says "nu-uh Paul had a vision that means we can eat pork now!". Of course, ditching the Jewish dietary laws conviently makes Christianity more appealing to potential converts.

The covenant with Israel is a contract. When you fulfill a contact you satisfy all the terms of it and it is done. The law is completed in Jesus Christ and is replaced by the commandments to love God and love one another, which Jesus stated encompasses all that the law was trying to do.

And it was Jesus who said that which goes into a man does not defile that man, but that which comes out of a man. So the we can eat pork thing is from Jesus.

FWIW, I'm with Robert Plomp on how to read Paul's letters on this topic.

[Lonestar]

The covenant with Israel is a contract. When you fulfill a contact you satisfy all the terms of it and it is done. The law is completed in Jesus Christ and is replaced by the commandments to love God and love one another, which Jesus stated encompasses all that the law was trying to do.

And it was Jesus who said that which goes into a man does not defile that man, but that which comes out of a man. So the we can eat pork thing is from Jesus.

FWIW, I'm with Robert Plomp on how to read Paul's letters on this topic.

You're rules lawyering. He said not two sentences later that "19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Seeing as he had immediately prefaced that "I am not here to overturn the Law and Prophets" that implies heavily he is referring to the 10(17) Commandments in 5:19.

[Lonestar]

It's worth noting that Early Christians thought you had to follow the Jewish Law as well, and Christianity didn't take off until Paul had his "vision" that CANXED the Law.

[Robert]

And I'm with Imran Siddiqui.

The law (all of the Thora, not just the 10 commandmends ) are indeed not abolished. They're still there to judge us. They show us we're sinners. But who believes in Jesus will die with him and be forgiven because he was punished for us not keeping the law. Then we resurrect into the new life where we live according to the laws of love.

The Thora is not abolished, it's still there to judge those who are not in Christ. But those who believe in Jesus are not in the old live again (where the law rules) but in the new life.

Anyone who wants to abolish the law or even change the tiniest part of it (And thus takes away means to be judge upon) is the smallest in the kingdom of heaven. That's what Jesus says. He came to keep the law (The only one who ever did) so that he is the only one who was who ever lived up to it. He didn't come to take away the means of judgement. He came to take the judgement despite the fact that he was the one who didn't deserve it.

[Lonestar]

Anyone who wants to abolish the law or even change the tiniest part of it (And thus takes away means to be judge upon) is the smallest in the kingdom of heaven. That's what Jesus says. He came to keep the law (The only one who ever did) so that he is the only one who was who ever lived up to it. He didn't come to take away the means of judgement. He came to take the judgement despite the fact that he was the one who didn't deserve it.

Annnnnnnd he didn't sotne the adulterous women. Hmmm...