Jesus and the Ten Commandments

[Willum]

So team, I think we all agree that the Ten Commandment are God's most cardinal unbreakable laws.

As God's son and a piece of him - whatever anyone may say, violating those commandments should be impossible - if he were real, I am sure we all agree.

So, let's see how many of them Jesus advocates breaking?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

and what it means.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

As a non-believer I don't sympathize with his plight. I don't find it believable. I don't find the apologist Jesus believable - but as we've discussed; I find this stance promotes disregard of the Adultery Commandment.

I also don't see how this answers post 19.

V/R

[marco]

As a non-believer I don't sympathize with his plight. I don't find it believable. I don't find the apologist Jesus believable - but as we've discussed; I find this stance promotes disregard of the Adultery Commandment.

I also don't see how this answers post 19.

It is a story. The point is to indicate mercy is a good thing. For literary consistency I suppose Jesus should have picked up a stone and done the job. He was qualified, by his own advice. He didn't, and that's what redeems the NT from the brutality of the OT. I'm not going to complain of this.

Religion is steeped in prudery, hang-ups about nakedness and naughty girls. If Jesus casts a blind eye I'm relieved. I've just read a story about a Danish Muslim father who perpetrated an unspeakable "honour act" against his daughter's boyfriend. This is the result of paying too close attention to the stuff of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Kill, stone with stones, burn.... Jesus did okay here, Willum.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

We both agree Jesus did the right thing. That isn't the point of the OP.
The question is, did he violate the Commandment?:

The answer is no, but he did say that it did not need to be respected - which is more to the point of the OP, the morality of the OT is covered in many other places in this forum.

Of course, did Jesus actually accomplish anything? I think we both agree that the woman got stoned (to death) later on, by as you put it, proper authorities - that was the law.

Were he a wise teacher, he would have been wise enough to know he had no influence on the woman's fate.

And of course there is the net message - some "messiah" out there says it is OK to violate God's old laws, because there are new ones.

No - that isn't what he said - but it is what he demonstrated. Jesus could say the Sun stood still in the heavens, but that doesn't make it so, and we really must assume that the saviour of mankind has some kind of knowledge of human nature.


V/R

[Willum]

So, the Crucifix, is an idol, and expressly forbidden by the Commandments, obviously Christ didn't use it, but his disciples; henchmen, certainly did, and of course his followers are doing far worse than taling his name in vain.

They are turning Jesus into a blasphemy, clearly against the Commandments. I would think God would stop this. Again, it suggests the Devil is at work, corrupting the Son of His Enemy into a sin.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by May_Queen44]

Erm, OK... those would be great for a new topic, but if you wouldn't mind skimming that, and letting me know which Commandments you think he violated... That's the subject of this OP.

Anyway, welcome to the forum...!

[bluethread]

Subtracting bluethread, I think the we posters on this OP have each separately arrived at individual different paths to conclude this story of the adulterous woman is a parable, or otherwise made-up:
1. They caught the woman in the act, but not the man.
2. An apologist release of "Blame the woman and punish her."
3. They asked Jesus, why would they ask him? It's poor plot device based on the specious assumption anyone would care about his opinion.
4. God would see the adultery, and see that the punishment had NOT been carried out - therefore the law-abiding Jewish in the crowd would not accept the story...
5. Why was she not brought before the proper authorities, instead of this fiasco...

For these reasons, probably more we shouldn't ascribe any reality to the story. Interesting revelation...
Back to topic.

The fact that the accusers did a lot of things wrong does not mean it did not happen. In fact, that is the point of the passage. In an attempt to trip Yeshua up, they set up a situation that is so wrong they thought they could catch Him on something. However, since He knew HaTorah, He could defuse the situation by asking that it be followed.

So, presumably she WAS brought to the right authorities,sometime after the story. Then she was stoned to death.
So what impact is the story and Jesus role?
None. Another reason to suspect the story.

If we accept your presumption, they would be faced with many of the same problems in court, so there is no way you can say that she was stoned to death anyway.

But were they entitled to kill her? I think so, there is no passage in the Bible I am aware of that controls who deals God's justice.

Deuteronomy 1:16 KJV
" And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him."

Deuteronomy 16:18 KJV
"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment."

Deuteronomy 19:18A KJV
" And the judges shall make diligent inquisition:"

Deuteronomy 25:1 KJV
"If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked."

So this leaves us with Jesus' actual message, was it one of disregarding the commandment?

No.

We are left there - did the crowd have the right to kill the woman?

No.

I don't know, but it seems to me, if no one was going to punish them, then certainly they were empowered.

They were empowered by how things seemed to them, not by HaTorah.

Perhaps they lawfully needed benediction from their Sadducee or Pharisee masters, I don't know -perhaps they were only jumping the gun.

Pretty much. You don't know.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by bluethread]

The fact that the accusers did a lot of things wrong does not mean it did not happen. In fact, that is the point of the passage.

Sure it doesn't: But talk is cheap and easy. These are strong indicators of proof.
You need to beat them before you waggle the claim as a better one.

In fact, that is the point of the passage. In an attempt to trip Yeshua up, they set up a situation that is so wrong they thought they could catch Him on something.

See, you are drinking the cool-aid. WHO DOES THAT? Nobody, and to a nobody like Jesus at the time. Remember he was just one of many wandering priests, nothing special about him. The only way he'd be special is if he were written that way, and you believed it. Nobody is going to give two sheckles to set him up. All they woud have had to do toa REAL prophet, would be to ignore him. Like I say - you drank the cool-aid.

In fact, that is the point of the passage. In an attempt to trip Yeshua up, they set up a situation that is so wrong they thought they could catch Him on something.

Interesting, so if you were to get your buds together and not punish someone for rape, say, it would be the same as the courts letting someone go because they weren't sans sin? That is what you are saying?

Deuteronomy:
And I say that all the mob were judges.
What if they were Sadducee? and had different belief about sin... one Sadd. could could have tossed the first stone! Lucky for Jesus there were no Sadducee in Jerusalem at the time!

If there were, they wouldn't have believed the story either!
Cool-aid man, cool-aid!

Dude, you keep bringing up the Hatorah, but all my research indicates it is not a respectable source. You might as well be invoking Alice in Wonderland.

[Willum]

So, the Crucifix, is an idol, and expressly forbidden by the Commandments, obviously Christ didn't use it, but his disciples; henchmen, certainly did, and of course his followers are doing far worse than taling his name in vain.

They are turning Jesus into a blasphemy, clearly against the Commandments. I would think God would stop this. Again, it suggests the Devil is at work, corrupting the Son of His Enemy into a sin.

So the Crucifix is an idol, quite against the Commandments...

[Willum]

So inducing Jerusalem to pay Roman taxes with coins that had the graven images of other Gods on them is against the Commandments.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 29 by Willum]

During the 1st c. it was difficult to interpret the law. Images on coins were not a problem when the law was first written. Jews had to interpret. The historical context is very difficult. Since some coins had the face of Caesar, and no Jew recognized Caesar as a graven image of God, this would not have been a problem for a good many Jews. However, some Jews thought any image that even indirectly (i.e., Eagle Standards on the Temple) made a link between Jehovah and Rome was anathema.

You seem to have fallen into a common fallacy which assumes that everything in Jesus' day was "matter of fact" and that there was no interpretation. This is a very non-historical viewpoint; it is also a tactic typically employed by atheists against fundamentalists. Since there are few fundamentalists on this forum, it is a weak tactic.

I recommend studying 1st c. Palestine and Jewish law. Neusner is very, very good. So is Sanders.