Why is it constantly claimed that there are only ten commandments in the bible when there patently aren't. There are at least 50! There's 20 or so in Exodus and Dueteronomy each.
Is there a reason why mainstream Christianity and Judaism has cherry picked just ten and left out the others?
And now, a joke:
I think there are 613 commandments. Excellent question. I doubt you'll get a satisfactory answer from the ones who insist the bible is the infallible word of God.
so according to Fry the Jews took 10 commandments because they were free. Brilliant.
I think someone selected ten out of them just for convenience.
er er er er i am struggling with this one....... I will do some research.... Before i say something wrong, i do that a lot. Will be back....
say something wrong i do a lot.
dont research half as much as i should.
if you know what i mean
Are you finished with your search or research?
Please mention it.
i haven't started it yet, i had my grandchildren here over night and they have both been sick i have packed them off home now.
I dont know why but you are really making me laugh. Are you winding me up.... and everyone else for that matter.
I don't mind if you laugh; it is good for your health.
I am waiting for the result of your search or reseach.
o.k. i will research, and that is good for me too, i am so lazy minded, be back soon, are you laughing too......
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i found out why Jehovah's Witnesses dont celebrate birthdays but that is the other thread. now....
Moses got the 10 commandments, originally, on stone, then got the others later. The research is why are we still under some of these commandments and not others..... i am not reporting that on here, you tell us
I'm 100% sure that I'm not qualified to answer this. Not sure why you asked me, but why not?
I always assumed the laws had been fulfilled. Jesus said somewhere that all laws would remain until they had been fulfilled. I always figured love god, love your neighbor encapsulated everything. Follow those and all the law is fulfilled. The mosaic law is null and void. All of it.
I just assumed mainstream Christianity had fallen into the same trap as the scribes and pharisees, so they were trying to insist on pointless laws to cause grief and confusion in their followers.
ha ha..... some of the laws where nailed on the stake (or some believe cross) ...... when Jesus died, to say they were no longer in use.
The law about not killing others still stands i am sure... kinda self explanatry i suppose.
I think that would be prohibited under love your neighbor. I could be wrong, of course.
The point is, any action that fulfills one of these two statements will fulfill any law previously stated. You wouldn't need a thousands other laws. All law on earth is fulfilled by ensuring you show love for others by your actions.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished
I'm not at home, so I looked it up on bing. This isn't quite the way the translation I have shows it, but it's in Matthew 22:
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
He says the laws are, according to my translation, fulfilled by the two commandments. I don't think this is really any different, just worded differently.
I got the other part for you JC...The law stays until fulfilled part.
I saw that thanks. I've compared three or four translations and I know there's room for interpretation (as with everything in that text) but I always interpreted it to mean that the law didn't remain in its entirety, but it would slowly be whittled away as each one was fulfilled.
But more importantly, that the law would remain only until the individual understood and incorporated the love god, love your neighbor mandate into their philosophy. Once they actually lived these two laws the other laws had been fulfilled and were no longer necessary.
Call me crazy. Most christians do when i say that, but it just makes sense to me.
I agree. Once you understand that only the two are required (as they cover all). You will have a much different outlook on life around and within you. And if that makes you crazy...well...I say sit back and enjoy the ride..that is what I do...Have you ever noticed how beautiful a cross-state/country car ride is, when you stop stressing the road in front of you and just take in the current scenery around you.
Well, there's a wide gap between understanding and implementation. I used to always say loving God was the easy part. It wasn't like he was around. So how much could he bother you? Loving mankind was the hurdle. But, the philosophy seemed to fit those I admire.
And you're right about the road. I refuse to be on a schedule for that very reason. Even if traffic makes me late for work I always figure the up side is I got to see the sun rise. That's always pretty.
Actually it is simple...But as they say...People tend to work harder at avoiding the "work" than if they would have just done it to begin with.
Really? I find it next to impossible, but I'm a difficult person, at best. I'm sure the whole concept works better for people who enjoy being around other people.
Here is something that works for me...
All people have faults...Once I was able to accept that people can't be perfect, it allowed me to look past thier faults to see the good beneath...
And of course, I am not perfect... And once I accepted that...I was able to actually see my faults and correct them as they come or work with them and allow them to better me.
Good philosophy. I try to do that, for the most part, but then I've got my pet peeves. I suppose I'll get better as long as I keep trying.
Jesus succinctly mentions like Moses of ONENESS of the Creator-God; and does not mention of him as god or son of god; Jesus mentions of no Trinity.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about Mosaic law, I thought.
But the passage you quoted from Matthew in that Jesus quotes and repeats teaching of Moses;so both are related. Jesus was a Jew and follower of Moses.
And Jesus, to the a Christians, was the final prophet, the Son of God. To me, he was enlightened. He gets to say what he wants on the subject. He's special.
Did it ever occur to you that Jesus was more of a 'figurehead' of those who were experiencing Roman rule and slavery, with many such men traveling around the Roman Empire preaching exactly what the Romans considered treason.
Perhaps, Jesus was just an encapsulation of all those who gave their lives and were crucified by the Romans for trying to make changes and free themselves from Rome.
That's pretty interesting. I've never heard that thrown out as a possibility. But I didn't think Jesus was considered a threat by the Romans.
If you're right though and everyone preaching that message was executed, that would mean they perceived a problem on a larger scale and had standing orders on how to handle it each time the problem arose. Is there anything to show that was the case or are we both simply speculating?
Rather than considering Jesus to be a man, consider Jesus a 'movement' of all men under the control of Rome. In that respect, Jesus was a huge threat.
Romans were some of the most superstitious people of that time regardless of the fact they instituted some of the most successful initiatives that were considered well ahead of their time. But, they still went home and sacrificed chickens to appease some superstition or another.
Oodles of material are available on the Roman Empire and how the rise of Christianity aligns with the collapse of the empire.
In Luke chapter 23...Jesus is accused (by the Jews)
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”
These accusations with proof, would be condemned to death. It was "told" to the Romans by the Jewish leadership (the religious men) that Jesus was gathering followers to over throw the Roman rule.
Interesting, I've read that before and always assumed the one thing. That section seemed pretty cut and dry. But throw on beelzedad's statement and, well, then it gets interesting. I'm going to have to think about it.
It will help to look up the meaning of the greek word "Christo" (spelling?) as well...Once I understood that actually meaning and reason behind why that word was used it more sense to me...
I probably will at lunch today. I had to laugh though, I stopped for a minute and wondered 'why am I letting two people named Satan's dad and two scorpions talk me into looking into something I'd rather they not be right about?' But, it's too interesting an idea to ignore.
I don't think anyone claims that there are ONLY 10 commandments. There were only 10 commandments that were given to Moses (and the Jewish people) on Mount Sinai - in that particular instance. These commandments are special because they mark God's establishment of His relationship with the Jewish people.
But these, and all the other laws and commands in the Bible were summed up nicely by Jesus in Matthew 12. I try to live by that.
Please quote from Torah.
NT has nothing to do with Torah or Moses.
Well, the Torah is quoted quite often in the New Testament, so it does have something to do with it. And the question was about commandments in the BIBLE, which has both the Torah and other books of the Old Testamant and the NEW TESTAMENT, so I think my response was perfectly appropriate.
Please stick to your Muslim beliefs and don't comment on things that you don't know anything about.
Anybody who has read the NT knows that Torah is not quoted often in NT.
Please collect all the verses quoted from Torah in the NT; it will hardly make a full chapter or so, I think.
Paar, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you, other than the fact that I'm feeling particularly argumentative right now.
The book of Matthew alone quotes the Torah 18 times. Fortunately, I don't have to list all the instances. Someone else has done it for me. And, yes, I know this list includes other books in the Old Testament besides the Torah, but I think the Torah is more than adequately represented.
I was going to post a link for you, but HubPages won't let me. Just do a Google search for "Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament" and look at the first result (Blue Letter Bible).
Jesus never said a word. Not even one. A thorough read of the NT AND OT will reveal the true personalities and motives of those who wrote what he is supposed to have said.
Further reading may bring you to the belief that no such person existed, and that the jesus story is a concoction built from many older stories that have already been repeated time and again long before the NT was written.
The NT tries to separate itself from the beliefs of the OT god with all sorts of long-bow interpretations that all fail miserably in every way.
Logic, spirituality, honesty, decency, and the truth are all immediate victims of the NT illusion that somehow the psychosis displayed by the OT god should be ignored from the NT on.
As time goes by religion has needed to re-interpret the bible and quoran to fit the things that are so obviously wrong that even the severely indoctrinated wont buy it anymore, and the only place the beliefs remain are in places with almost no education.
Religion stifles cures for diseases and scientific advancement and is responsible for the deaths of thousands who would have had life saving medicine if not for these loons.
New medical and other scientific theories take bites out of the silly interpretations of religious tomes.
Then the arguments start afresh between all these "believers" who get buried in their own interpretations, which is why one book produces hundreds of opposing beliefs among the "faithful."
So apart from a few recommendations called "Commandments" which my dog could have worked out for himself without needing a god to think them out, the rest only illuminates what it was like to live in the bronze age.
The other 603 commandments, religionists avoid like the plague.
Wow, thats some tall claim to knowledge if ever I saw one.
No, tall claims here, a tall claim is expecting any adult to believe the bible is the word of a god.
My claims are based on facts that are fortunately available to a large degree online these days. I prefer the views of Stephen Fry, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Carl Jung, Maria Louise Von Franz, James Hillman, Peter O'Connor and others who have a scientific view of man. how the mind works and mankind's need for such myths.
I can provide peer reviewed credible sources to support my opinions, but anyone who cares to is welcome to correct anything I have said providing they are prepared to do the same.
If I'm wrong, I will change anything I believe to suit better data.
After 2 years experience in these threads I know they are never read by those with opposing views.
So... you first?
I'm sure the polar duck will respond to you, but I figured I'd butt right on in. I agree with you on many points, but claiming Jesus never existed is like proving there is no God. It's opinion. Good for Jung and all the others on having an opinion. Good for you for looking to them for yours. But, again, since it was two thousand years ago and none of us were there, it's kind of hard to prove your point.
As to the words attributed to Jesus, I would agree that all care should be taken, but it is wishful thinking to say that nothing written was said by him. You have to look at each gospel, try to discern what of the author flavored the work, and wash that out of it. Then compare them all for consistencies.
You believe the writings are lies. I believe there is evidence of enlightenment. But without proof, either way, it is opinion. I think Christianity is as bogus as you do, but I won't stretch my opinion beyond what I honestly think simply to push an agenda.
friend Earnestshub is speaking about non-existence of Jesus-Christian-god/son-of-god, I think; and not about Jesus the human beings son of Mary.
Nice to see you read it and offer your view. You are right, I was not there, and neither were those who wrote about jesus.
It all came later, and my opinion that he did not exist is based on the fact that most of his life story was retold from other stories from other "jesus" figures in other places cultures and times, much like the biblical story of the floods.
The biblical stories themselves are only a fraction of the information we now have of these times and times before.
The biblical agenda is demonstrably psychotic, and that does not stop with the OT.
I have to wonder how someone could read the OT and then say "god loves you" with a straight face!
I responded to your post about Jesus. I have no reason, or desire, to disagree with any of the rest of it. But, you have to accept the fact that the Old Testament was probably written during the Babylonian captivity in an attempt to help a people hold their identity. Of course, ancient man would write a fanciful history for himself about a wild and vengeful god that smote anything in their path.
I agree, the mysticism was most probably added to the New Testament. The story was fluffed up to suit an agenda. But the core teachings are easily argued to be from an historical figure. And I believe that the message was profound enough to explain why people went to so much trouble to spread the message. It got buried almost immediately, but that's organized religion for you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you take everything out of it but what you can know for sure of what he said, and the fact that he was willing to die to send that message; it makes it all the more profound.
Can you imagine a world where people put the needs of others first? Where they looked to work on their own faults instead of yours? One where we didn't sit in judgement? We banded together for the greater good? It's a heck of a message to me. Considering the world he walked in I'd have been willing to do anything to spread that message too.
There's a hell of a lot of evidence to point to the non-existence of Jesus and not just that Jesus was not the son of god.
He certainly wasn't born in the way the bible claims, he certainly didn't die in the way the bible claims either - the Romans were pretty meticulous in their record keeping - births and deaths didn't go without notice where taxes were for the taking!
There is no contemporary writing which refers to Jesus either. Not one line.
There are an awful lot of other dieties in the mould of jesus - though "in the mould" is not the right to describe it obviously as they came earlier! I mean, if I was a roman flogging a new religion to my populace I'd make him very similar to other roman gods:
I'd make his birth and death coincide with existing pagan festivals. I'd mould him in the image of a pre-existing god, say.... Mythras. Put his temple on Vatican hill, have him born the son of a virgin, etc etc.
If jesus did exist then his historical life was nothing like what was described in the bible. But then, is this important or is he just a metaphor for believers?
What else can a nonbeliever say?
Really! It's not rocket science, is it?
"If Jesus..." is the key.
IF He lived, . . . .then . . .
IF He never existed, . . . then . . . (fill in the blanks.)
It still comes down to faith, no matter how much anyone denies it!
I BELIEVE He did, you BELIEVE Hi didn't. What else can be said?
I agree that the man was probably nothing like the myth. But that's religion for you. Give it an inch and it'll give you a god that they're proud of. But, I do think Christianity had a real figure that caused it's beginning. There's too much reason than to think otherwise, for me.
You have a lot of agreement from both sides for that opinion.
Sorry. I do see your argument. I just love the message I get from the whole thing too much to throw it out.
That's fine, there are beautiful words in the bible, wonderfully clear archetypes, easily discernible symbols abound, some wonderful tales of love.
I can read the bible without having to see it as inspired by anything other than the desire and politics of those who wrote it.
There are also many ridiculous megalomanic, psychotic passages that begin with "god said." and recommendations that were obvious to others as murder, rape, slavery and suppression.
I enjoy Willy Waveadagga myself, but at least his work is not presented as truth or real threats.
Mind you, there is plenty of human truth in such as "Macbeth"
Ok. I'll grant you that, all the way around. Unfortunately, until I started reading this forum I've never spent any time wondering what others did with any of it. I know that makes me sound unkind, but I didn't think of the crazies as anything but a fringe group. I do get mad at the religious right, but that's politics to me.
Being here, hearing the thoughts of the individual believer; the fact that they follow the crazy ideas of these nut job preachers you can't turn the tv off quickly enough not to notice is sad. That comment one of them made about standing by Jesus and waving at those headed for hell was sick. And a post I read about 'christian marriage' honestly made me gag when I could finally go back and read it past the first few comments that were made specifically to bash non christians. I'd write a hub about the insanity of it all if I wasn't so thoroughly disgusted about so many things I've seen here. I figure maybe I'm simply not giving some the benefit of the doubt enough to get where they're coming from yet.
I don't see it that way, I think you have enough courage to question what you believed, and enough uncommon common sense to work it out for yourself despite being immersed in religion by your relatives.
I also like that you can still agree with either side when that makes sense to you.
I agree with you on that one. Joseph Smith was the real man that started Mormonism, Mohammed was the real man that started Islam and I dont understand why people find it so hard to accept the possibility that Jesus was the real man who started christianity.
It's more than possible, but the point is that one jesus becomes nothing like what is written about in the bible, where do you stand on everything else?
I mean, for most believers they'd want Jesus to have at least have done SOME of the things that are said of him. I understand that some things are exagerated (I don't think there are many people who really think he turned water into wine), but surely some of it has to be true to have some resonance?
Reading the bible gives you the distinct impression that Jesus was cherry picked and then designed to fit other mythical figures of the time. This was done by the people selling this new faith to the masses of the Roman Empire.
There are plenty of other figures from the bible that almost certainly didn't exist - King David, Adam and Eve etc. Why not Jesus too?
It surely must be important to add historical context where possible, it makes the whole thing more interesting for a start.
It is the scribes that created a mountain from the molehill. Jesus was in the image of the God, not god or son of god.
Adam and Eve? Sure. How in the world could that story work to be real. Trust me, I've tried to resolve it in line with what we know. The rest of the figures? Who knows or cares if there are any historical figures buried in the stories. I never saw the answer to that as the point.
I assumed the point of the stories was to see the progress of humanity dealing with moral issues from the beginning of their awareness, to the point where they could think enough for themselves to be better, simply because they were able to. That, to me, was the whole point of Jesus' message. He told us what his vision was, but then he told us to look inside. I assume he had enough respect for humanity to believe they would come to the same conclusions. So he preached to stop looking to others to tell you what is right. Look within yourself. Find it and do it. We're all able to see it without religious leaders to guide us. They will always lead you astray, simply because you aren't thinking for yourself.
How christianity evolved from that is a mystery to me.
Is it possible he wasn't real? Of course. Was he saying the same thing others were? Sure, to a great extent. I think the thing that always got me was; I know Jesus preached of God, and it forces us to look back at the OT and then forward to Paul and the intelligent reaction is WTF? How organized religion pushes what they do is beyond my ability to figure out. But, even though he was Jewish, you have to assume he couldn't see his God the way it's preached today. He could not have had his philosophy within that framework.
Real, or not, I don't see the message about trying to find a way to find a better person within yourself any different from a lot of philosophies. I can't find the need to stamp something out that makes sense to me.
It is true; Bible included little from Jesus' mouth in its bounds.
That's either one smart dog, or one tall tale you have going there ernest. But I do hope you feel better after that little diatribe.
I agree with everything you've just said.
The idea that nobody had ever thought to apply the commandments prior to their inclusion within the bible is laughable. I mean "do not kill"?! I think it's doing a pretty big injustice to our ancestors' previous 250,000 years on the planet. They couldn't have been a particularly successful species to that point!
To be honest I struggle to remember all of the ten they cherry-picked. I'd be in real trouble with fifty.
Numbers have symbolic meaning to the Jews. 613 is 6+1+3=10, ya know.
10 is a number of the number of the total human being so I would lose sleep over that unless you guys really want to go crazy.
Don't take it literally, like the English, Hebrew was very poetic and their poetry included some mathematical concepts they associated with certain spiritual concepts.
It is literature, so you have to treat it as such--and with respect.
613... my city and country code.
I always thought Melbourne was special!
by Rad Man2 years ago
Are the 10 commandment applicable today? Are they applicable to non-Jews? Are they applicable to women? I ask because the bible says Jesus said one needs to follow them to get into heaven, but when I read them a few...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
I, KLH, stated that It is logical to follow The Ten Commandments because they are based on self preservation. Righteous Atheist, however, responded with this rebuttal:"So - you don't know what 10% of...
by psycheskinner5 years ago
One thing I have always wondered is to what extent people think the 10 Commandments are meant to be absolutely context free, and to what extend they were meant for the People immediately after Exodus and somewhat...
by Daniel Carter6 years ago
The 10 Commandments are a given. Don't list them. We know what they are.I think the list of laws and commandments is exhaustive, particularly in the Old Testament/Tora. I'm curious to find out what ALL the laws and...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Hi friendsTalmud does not consist of Word of Revelation.So it is not the first source; it is a secondary / subordinate source subservient to Torah. Do you agree?ThanksI am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
by OpinionDuck5 years ago
None, they didn't exist for them, and technically I think breaking the tablets into pieces is like repealing them.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.