Jesus vs. the Ten Commandments

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

This is a question that's been bothering me for a while now, I hope some the Christians or other people that know more about it than me around here could clarify that a little for me.

Isn't the praise of Jesus and the Saints, praying to them etc. against the ten commandments, more precisely against the following passage of the Bible:

3 you shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
(Exodus 20:2-17).

[Bruder Cuzzen]

 I remember a passage in which I'll paraphrase the Good Son , " I come not to uphold the law , but to destroy it " ... "Make no vows , do or do not ".

I think Jesus realized that people are human and should not be killed for the odd infraction . Before he came along Israelites and Judeans subject to the laws of Aaron which included the big 10 , could be put to death for doing any work on the sabbath , I think that meant activities that we today consider hobbies as well as house cleaning or gathering wood for the evenings dinner .

I think Martin Luther was the first to act against the contradictions that you have pointed out with out being tortured to death by the Catholic clergy .. In the protestant churches you will not see images of Mary or the Saints , just a cross . Protestants do not pray to the saints just God or Jesus....But ..." ...the way to the Father is through me ONLY (Jesus) , so some denominations believe that praying to God ain't gonna get ya anywheres .

Anyhow that is as I see it from the Gospel Churches , Pentecostals , Baptist , and United dogmas , The Jehovah's do not pray through Jesus , in fact Jesus is secondary or tertiary ( at least at the meeting I went to .), The Mormons also do not place heavy emphasis on Jesus ( as I saw it through the two missionaries that dropped by one afternoon .

That is all I can help you with Sibling Kiyoodle , perhaps Sibling Chatty can fill in the details with far greater accuracy and eloquence than I am able to muster .

Regards, Sib BC

[ivor]

Isn't there also the triumvirate.  You know, the father, the son and the holy ghost.  The holy ghost is sometimes the heavenly host or the army of heaven.  These are sometimes rolled into one which makes everything okay.

[beagle]

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,[/i]
(Exodus 20:2-17).

This is the one that has always interested me. I know Christians who have so much trouble with the idea of visiting wrath on the children of the transgressors that they have considered adopting belief in re-incarnation as a way of interpreting it.

I guess if you believe in original sin (although it's tricky to think up an original one these days  ) then receiving a boost to your quota from what daddy and the chorus girl got up to does not seem so inconsistent.

[Swatopluk]

Officially the RCC states that the veneration of the saints is not worship as towards God. The reality looks quite different to me. Apart from the questionable taste often displayed the veneration of Mary is nothing short of making her a goddess in her own right often even put above the others. I think this is more often than not pure idol worship (and Mary herself would have definitely disapproved of it).
The orthodox customs are more complicated and try not to judge there.

[Griffin NoName]

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,[/i]
(Exodus 20:2-17).

I guess if you believe in original sin (although it's tricky to think up an original one these days  ) then receiving a boost to your quota from what daddy and the chorus girl got up to does not seem so inconsistent.

But surely this is not to do with original sin, only jealousy. It's fine as long as daddy didn't worship the chorus girl, or bow down to her.

If jealousy is the real issue, then any communication that passes through a third entity of any kind must carry the risk of the messenger being preferred.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Isn't the praise of Jesus and the Saints, praying to them etc. against the ten commandments, more precisely against the following passage of the Bible:

3 you shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
(Exodus 20:2-17).

- Trinitarian Christians (i.e most denominations) teach that Jesus is God... but another aspect of God.  So, when they worship Jesus (who they consider to be God the Son), they don't believe it breaks the commandment you quoted (given by God the Father), since God the Son and God the Father are the same God.

- some folks will say that Catholic (and other denomination) veneration of icons and relics, and prayers for the intercession of saints crosses the line into idolatry.  Those who engage in these practices would likely disagree, though.

- some denominations (primarily Catholicism) do preach that the Eucharist (i.e. the sanctified bread and wine) are literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and therefore are worthy of the worship due only to a God.  Some people in other denominations do consider this worship idolatry.*



* which reminds me of a variation on Pascal's Wager that occurred to me a while back:

- say you're a Catholic.  You believe all the teachings of the Church are true.
- the Church teaches that the Eucharist is literally God, and can be worshipped as such (though they also teach that this Eucharistic Adoration isn't something that you must do to reach Heaven).
- the Church also teaches that worship of something that is not God is idolatry, a mortal sin (i.e. one that can send you to Hell).
- the Church teaches that the Sacrament of the Eucharist (i.e. the ceremony where the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ) can only be performed by a priest.
- the Church also teaches that the Sacrament of Holy Orders (i.e. the ceremony where a man becomes a priest) can only be performed by a Bishop, who is a priest himself (and so on up the chain).

So... there are a few possibilities:

- the Church is wrong and God doesn't care one way or the other (or doesn't exist): whether you worship the Eurcharist or not, the outcome is the same.
- the Church is wrong, and the bread and wine don't become God, even by a priest (i.e. the Protestants were right): if you worship the bread and wine, you practice idolatry and are going to Hell.  If you don't, nothing bad happens.

- the Church is right and your priest is actually a legitimate priest (i.e. he was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop, who was as well... and so on all the way up to one of the Apostles, who was ordained by Jesus - the chain is completely unbroken): if you worship the bread and wine, you get a hard-to-define, but Earthly (and therefore finite) benefit.  If you don't, nothing bad happens.

- the Church is right and somewhere along the chain, one or more people messed up (e.g. perhaps one of the bishops along the chain was ordained by the Pope of Avignon, not the Pope of Rome, so his ordination wasn't valid.  Then he wouldn't have been able to give valid ordinations himself, and so on down the chain), so the bread and wine are still just bread and wine, not God:  if you worship the bread and wine, you practice idolatry and are going to Hell.  If you don't, nothing bad happens.

If you assume Hell to have infinite disbenefit, then even if you assume that the Catholic Church is correct in terms of doctrine, by the logic of Pascal's Wager, it's better not to practice Eucharistic Adoration.

Which makes me wonder why Catholics have tried to use Pascal's Wager on me.

[Swatopluk]

I think that noone could not be heretical (as far as the RCC is concerned), if (s)he believed the same things from the 1st to the 21st century. There was e.g. a total reversal on the church doctrine on witchcraft. Before Boniface VIII (I think it was him with the witch bull) it was heretical to believe in the existence of magic etc., afterwards it was heretical not to (the Malleus Maleficarum actually starts with the claim that doubts in the conspiracy theory were heretical).
Don't know what the RCC today has to say about the topic.
Admittedly the protestants were even slightly more ardent in burning alleged witches than Catholics.

[Plunder Down-Under]

The way I see it Jesus came to re-write the rules possibly because God didnt think they were working, prior to Jesus all the rules were "Do Not do this" and Thou shalt now something something.

But then Jesus turned up saying DO love your neighbour, Thou SHALL etc, replacing the negatives with possitives.

Personally I dont believe in the God aspect, but I agree with the be good and love everyone equally stuff.

[Sibling Chatty]

BC, a bit off on the paraphrase, I think...

(OK, scanning in a textbook and hoping it works.)

Many Christians are perplexed when they confront the issue of the Mosaic Law. How binding is the Law on the Christian? Some have said that Jesus abolished the Law of Moses. I would have to disagree, based on the following passage spoken by Jesus Himself:

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."

So why then do Christians not observe the Mosaic Law? The answer is that they do observe parts, but not all of it. Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If this is not the case, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.

In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.

The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship. Since its primary purpose was to point to the coming Savior, Jesus made it unnecessary. He did not abolish it, in the sense of destroying it; He fulfilled it. Nowhere do we read that Jesus thought that the ceremonial law was wrong. The principles behind the ceremonial law are still applicable to us today, that is, the principles of worshipping and serving a holy God.

The civil law prescribed rules for the Israelites' daily living. These laws separated the Jews from the Gentiles, and gave the Gentiles the example of how a holy people should live. Since much was given to the Jews, much was expected. But God gave a new covenant in Christ, and there is now no distinction to be made between Jew and Gentile. We are still to follow the requirements of this law as God's people, but the punishments are not for any nation to impose on its people, because we are no longer separated by nations but by God's grace (Christians and non-Christians).

The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.

iIm not in full agreement with this guy on everything, but he's spot on about the fulfilling of the Laws.

The 10 commandments aren't all the same kind of law, nor are they the totality of the Hebraic Laws.

As to the saints...less 'ritualistic' Protestants really don't the sort of Saint things that Catholics and High Church Anglicans do.

And then...there's not a comparison of worship as worship toward God/the Trinity versus the asking of the intercession of the Saints. Ask a Cathoric, they'll tell ya. "We don't pray to Saints, we pray that the Saint intercedes with God/Jesus for us." So St. Theresa (The Little Flower) isn't being prayed TO, but prayed through when you ask for her intercession with your lost cause.

The irreverent me wonders if God's got ADD and needs all those Saints to keep his mind on business...

[Bruder Cuzzen]

Thanks for clarifying things for me Chatty , It is obvious that i haven't picked up the Good Book for a decade .

I do get a hankering to read Paul's letters though , it is a shame that some churches have interpreted his writings in such harmful ways , for example , he didn't insist followers be celebite .
He just figured ( correctly IMO) that having a spouse and family to look after in those times would not make for a truly effective ministry .

Why the RCC refuses to correct itself and evolve like everything does or must is beyond my comprehension .

I can only surmise that it is for the sake of maintaining power over the mass(es) .

[Sibling Chatty]

Don't get me started on Paul...

Saul of Tarsus persecuted the earliest followers of Jesus. He was a 'come-lately' that wanted to be in the lead, and he injected WAY too much of his own instructions into his 'epistles', thus leaving it open for other men to decide HIS interpretations were 'gospel'.

Why ANYBODY chooses to not correct themselves...well, the RCC has way too much invested in "their way"...or the highway, as does the American government, and as do most other heard-headed and heard-hearted massive structures that depend on the 'goodwill' of their subjects.

[Swatopluk]

But Paul had at least the decency to add an occasional "at least that's my personal opinion. I have no explicit instructions from above". That's far better than the RCC standard (and let's better not talk about some Protestants).

[Sibling Chatty]

True, Paul says that. Now, if we could get the patriarchal religions to BELIEVE that it's just his opinion... but, according tho the Patriarchal Religions, what do I know...I'm female!!

To this day, the Methodist minister (now Bishop) that gave me such grief about ordination when I was 23 tries to convince me to be ordained. Feh.

Feh to the Methodists, Feh to the Baptists. I'd seriously consider the Christian Church, but which non-group? (They were still sorting it out when I ceased being on staff.)

I'm more closely aligned with some of the Quakers lines of though nowdays, anyway, and they don't have much of an ordained ministry!

Paul and the Pope just seem to have a really bad problem with women. I would bet Paul gets over it before this Pope does!!

[Swatopluk]

At least Paul was either married or considered marrying (or he wouldn't complain that some criticise him for taking her with him on missionary tournee). A number of authors (Late Antiquity and early Middle Ages) believed that he was a widower when he wrote about "seeking no woman".
Doesn't change the fact that Paul's theology and theologians interpreting him cause(d) a lot of trouble though.
Before the death of JP2 I thought that Grand Inquisitor Ratz was already beyond the age limit for popery (yes, there is one). Unfortunately I was wrong.

Maybe it would have been better, if the Mithras cult had won. That was exclusively male, so women could have come up with their own cult, not being forced to do the low prestige jobs for the church. On the other hand we should not forget that female (Christian) priests were not thrown out completely before the high Middle Ages (although it had been tried for centuries).