Revisiting the Ten Commandments.

Like maybe the "God of Environmentalism" or the "God of Materialism"

 

I still like Mort's take on the subject

The 10 Suggestions

 

How the Ten Commandments affected the views of America's leaders:

"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion" - John Adams, Nov. 4, 1816, letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." - Harry S Truman, Feb. 15, 1950, Attorney General's Conference.

References to the Ten Commandments in court cases:

"The Ten Commandments have had an immeasurable effect on Anglo-American legal development" - U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson , W.D. Va. (1983)

"It is equally undeniable ...that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." - U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)

While it is not accurate to claim our constitution and laws were "based" on the Ten Commandments, it is quite obvious that our founding fathers and the nation they created were influenced by them.

 

"Note it does not say 'given to Christians' Christianity incorporated Jewish law"

"The whole Old Testament was written before Christianity existed. Yet, Christians adopted the laws God gave to the Jews."

Neither one of those statements are correct. It is a common mistake but a very relevant one.
All Israelites are Hebrews
All Judahites are Israelites
But, not ALL Israelites are Judahites
And in the modern context, not all Jews are Judahites or Israelites or Hebrews

"The term Hebrew is first used in the scriptures to refer to Abraham (Genesis 14:13). Then it is used of Joseph (Genesis 39:14,17) and the other descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 40:15; 43:32). It is uncertain why Abraham is called ~'the Hebrew." Some have suggested that the word Hebrew comes from a word meaning 'on the other side" or "to cross over" and alludes to Abraham leaving Ur and crossing the Euphrates River. Furthermore, no special reason is given in the scriptures for calling the nation that came from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, Hebrews. The term does, however, identify the nation as descendants of Abraham."
"The name of Jacob, the son of Isaac (Genesis 25:26) who was the promised son of Abraham (Genesis 17:19), was changed to Israel when he wrestled with a man of God (Genesis 32:28). Hence, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (Israel) made up the nation of Israel and were sometimes called Israelites (Exodus 9:7). When the nation divided, the ten northern tribes arrogated to themselves the name Israel, and the two southern tribes became known as Judah. Both nations were taken captive; Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians and Judah was later taken captive by the Babylonians. When the Babylonian captivity ended, exiles of both nations- Israel and Judah- returned to their homeland and were again united under the designation of Israel."

"IT will no doubt come as something of a surprise to most Christians to find that the literal word ‘JEW’ does not appear in the entire original text of the Bible, neither the Old nor the New Testaments. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament uses the word ‘Yehudim’, meaning ‘Judahite’. The original Greek of the New Testament uses the word ‘Ioudaios’, meaning ‘Judean’.

These original words were used in the earlier translations of our Bible, and only seem to have been replaced by the word ‘Jew’ in fairly relatively recent times.

Dr Young, in his ‘Analytical Concordance of the Bible’says of the word ‘Jew’;

“A descendant of Judah. Strictly speaking, the name is only appropriate to the subjects of the kingdom of the two tribes after the separation of the ten tribes.”

I cannot too strongly emphasize that point. The word ‘Jew’, even as it is presently used in the Bible, was only ever applicable to the southern House of Judah, and in fact, only to a small portion of even that section of the overall people of Israel. The Northern House of Israel was NEVER referred to as ‘Jews.’ In fact, the major portion of the House of Judah was also NEVER referred to as ‘Jews.’

The word ‘Jew’ was only ever used in the Bible, and then only by modern translators, in regard to the descendants of the portion of the Southern House of Judah who returned from the Babylonian captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah. The word could not have been applied to the balance of the House of Judah, nor to the Northern House of Israel, for the simple reason that they were not there! These people, who formed the major part of Israel, were in captivity to the north-west of Palestine, and included the whole of the northern ten tribes which had been previously taken into captivity, together with the major section of the southern two tribes who had subsequently been taken captive into the same regions long before the Babylonian captivity. The Apostle James was fully aware of this fact, because he addressed his epistle to, “The TWELVE tribes scattered abroad.”

It is absolutely essential for a correct understanding of the Bible that we acknowledge the difference between “The Hebrews” “The House of Israel,” “The House of Judah,” and “The Jews.”"

Some people would ask "What difference does it make?" It makes a huge difference.
The prophets displayed meticulous care in their address to “The House of Israel”, “The House of Judah”, and “The inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Jews.”

To apply to one House a prophecy which refers to the other, only confuses both the message and its understanding.

"But in regard to the “Jews”, it is essential to note that this name is used in the New Testament of those who resided in the portion of Palestine called Idumea. Thus they were, in the main, the Idumeans. It is also interesting to note that not once did our Lord ever have a good word for these people. On the contrary, He constantly referred to them as His greatest enemies.

Thus we have two distinct sections within the people of Christ’s day referred to as ‘Jews.’ There were the Galileans, who were mainly from the tribe of Benjamin (The ‘Light-bearing’ Tribe). It was from this section of people from whom came all of the disciples except Judas. These were the GOOD FIGS referred to in the 24th. chapter of Jeremiah. Most of the true descendants of Israel of the Babylonian captivity were to be found in this group. But there were also the Idumeans, comprising the ‘mixed multitude’ who came back with the others from Babylon. These also mixed with the people of the land who were NOT Israelites, and constituted the BAD figs of Jeremiah’s prophecy. It was these people who were claiming to be God’s people, and whom our Lord Jesus Christ accused of being ‘Children of their father the devil.’"
.
The religion of the Israelites is more properly termed "Hebrewism" or actually more accurately "Yahwism." The religion of what has become known as Judaism came out of the Babylonian captivity when the remnants of the nation of Judah were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar. The people adopted a mixture of Babylonian mysticism and true Yahwism. The Talmud was written during this time and is the predominate text governing the life and religion of this sect which has evolved into today's Talmudic Judaism.

They're adherents returned with the exiles to Judea and formed a large portion of those living there at the time of Christ. It is they who clamored for his execution and them who are referred to by Christ himself as "The synagogue of Satan".

It is they whom Paul says "Those who call themselves Jews (Yehudim, descendants of the tribe of Judah) but are not".

The presence of the Ten Commandments and other Yahwism traditions in modern Christianity was not through adoption but rather through direct inheritance. The Bible says that the descendants of Abraham, and the inheritors of the covenant are all who accept the Gospel of Christ. Christians are "grafted" into the nation of Israel and are "joint heirs with Christ" to the promises and covenants God made with the early Israelites.

The supposed contradictions in scripture come not from an error in the texts but in the English version of it. As I have explained before the modern English language Bible is not a word for word translation of ancient scripture. It is a "transliteration". Meaning that a monk who could read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek would read a passage and attempt to put into English a summary of what was being presented. This has led to many "errors" in the English version. The most well know and aforementioned instance of "Thou shalt not kill".

In the original Hebrew the word, as is common in that and many other ancient languages, has a much wider meaning than is possible with a one word translation. It largely depends on context. The original word, and I don't have my Strong's Concordance to hand, but the word means literally to kill on purpose. And even that is a very oversimplified translation. But a more accurate one word translation is murder. So their is no interpretation of the verse, it simply needs to be put into English correctly. Which it wasn't.

Another lesser known instance of this error, and another supposed Biblical contradiction, comes from the Catholic tradition, later carried into the Protestant churches, of a "Good Friday" and a Sunday morning resurrection.

This results not from a mistranslation/transliteration of the text but rather from an ignorance of Yahwism and it's customs and practice.

The Friday crucifixion comes from the text that says that the family of Christ went to Pilate to ask that his body be taken from the cross before sunset as it was the start of the Sabbath. It was against their religion to leave a dead corpse visible on the Sabbath. Thus the soldiers were commanded to break the legs of the two thieves to hasten their death. But when they came to Christ they found he was already dead. Fulfilling the prophecy that none of his bones would be broken. This was about 3 pm. His body was taken down and placed in the tomb. But as it was close to the start of the Sabbath there was not time to properly anoint and prepare the body as per their custom. So the two women returned, traditionally on Sunday morning, to complete this task and found the tomb empty.

The problem here is that first, prophecy tells us that he would lay in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. Anyone can count that Friday to Sunday is not 3 days. There have been many vain attempts made to reconcile this. Contrary to anywhere else in scripture some claim that one night, one day, and one night constitute the 3 "days". This is what I call forcing a round peg into a square hole. You can make it fit but it leaves a lot of gaps around the edges.

The second problem is that it was Roman law that no one could be declared officially dead until they had laid in a tomb for 3 days. The medical expertise at the time undoubtedly resulted in many people presumed dead that awoke a day or two later. So a person who wasn't quite dead when laid in a tomb for 3 days and nights would most certainly be "officially" dead at the end of the period.

With the fear that his followers would steal the body, Pilate ordered soldiers to guard the tomb, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have been allowed access until the full 3 day period was up.

So where did the Friday crucifixion come from? The monks transliterating the scriptures failed to realize that under Mosaic law there are 7 Holy Feast days per year whose observation was mandatory. The Feast days were to be considered a sacred Sabbath day. So when a feast day occurred on a day other than the traditional weekly Saturday Sabbath it was an extra Sabbath for that week.

When Christ was crucified in the year 4 AD in the month of Nisan, the Passover Holy Feast/Sabbath day occurred on the 9th, beginning on Wednesday at sunset. This is also stated by the first century historian Josephus. Christ was crucified on Wednesday afternoon, his body taken from the cross just before sunset, the start of the special Passover Sabbath, and laid in the tomb.

The women would have came to the tomb to anoint his body sometime after sunset on Saturday night, after the end of the weekly Sabbath and after the required 3 day waiting period proscribed by Roman law. So just as was prophesied he lay in the tomb a full 3 days and 3 nights.

It is speculation but it is only logical that the women would have wanted to complete the task as soon as was possible. When they arrived they found the soldiers asleep and the tomb empty. It is logical that this was early on Saturday night, not Sunday morning. This view is reinforced by the account that they ran to tell the disciples an found them gathered together in a room, possibly having their evening meal.

The "Good Friday" tradition simply does not reconcile with scripture and the Easter morning, sunrise story is an obvious adaption of the traditional Roman, pagan tradition of a sunrise service to honor Ishtar (pronounced Easter) the goddess of fertility. When Constantine declared Christianity the official Roman religion and all of the traditional pagan rites and holly days were "Christianized".

So much of what we think we know of scripture is based on false translations and misunderstood traditions. Such is the case of Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, and Christians.

The Ten Commandments, as everything in scripture was not "adopted" by Christians, it was inherited. And it was not given to the "Jews" it was given to the followers of Yahweh in which the Christians of the world are the lineage of.

 

The original languages were so nuanced that it is nearly impossible to get a true representation in English that does justice to the original. I once heard a preacher who read passages from a Hebrew Bible and in English. The difference was amazing, it was such a richer, fuller recitation. Much more descriptive, much more nuanced. But he admitted that it still didn't do justice to the original.