Churches adopt new Ten Commandments

The Telegraph ^ | 3/5/2012 | Hannah Furness

[blueyon]

Hundreds of churches across the country are now preaching an updated version of the Ten Commandments, rewritten to reflect modern values. The religious rules, which Christians believe were etched onto tablets by God and given to Moses, have been modified to use up-to-date language and principles.

Inspired by last year’s riots, the new vows include “manage your anger”, “know God” and “catch your breath” and are understood to be used in more than 600 churches in Britain.

The original “thou shalt not steal” has become “prosper with a clear conscience”, and the lengthy “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” becomes “take God seriously”.

[wafflehouse]

If you are bound to keep the requirements of the Ten Commandments, then you are bound to accept the punishments for violating them listed in Exodus 21-23.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. quick, better go kill someone! dont want to be bound by that law and face the punishment!

[ejonesie22]

Well American Churches are treating that as the “Ten Really Nifty Suggestions” so rewriting them is just the next step...

[wafflehouse]

The Law of Moses was abolished and replaced by the New Covenant when Christ was crucified. In Matthew 5, Christ revealed the requirements of this new covenant as opposed to the requirements under the Old Covenant. Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:14-16 clearly state that the Old Law was done away with and replaced with the new.

you know, i didnt see the word 'COVENANT' anywhere in Matt 5. As for Paul's Scriptures:

2 peter 3:
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Paul is an advocate for the Law. He was a Torah-keeping Jew. You are one of the 'lawless people'

[ChoobacKY]

Then you are calling the word of God the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard. See what Paul has to say about this subject in Galatians 5:3.

[wafflehouse]

Nobody is free to define their own private righteousness by which God will judge them as He promises to do for every human. He will use one and only one definition for all humanity.

well said

[wafflehouse]

you are ignorant of scripture and are teaching some mighty dangerous stuff there. I am trying to warn you.

[CatherineofAragon]

I love that graphic. Thank you.

[ChoobacKY]

No, you won’t see the word covenant in Matthew 5. However, you will see it in the following references where it refers to the kingdom of God (the church) which was established when Christ was crucified. And I erred in saying Christ put forth the requirements of the New Covenant in Matthew 5. I should have said he put forth SOME of the requirements. What he did in that chapter was to contrast the works of the old law which were legalistic with the requirements of the spirit under the new law of Christ.

Jer_31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, “A NEW COVENANT,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

And, yes, Paul was a Torah keeping Jew until his conversion as recorded in Acts 9:16. With his conversion, he ceased being a practicing Jew. The rest of Paul’s life after this moment was dedicated to spreading the gospel. How that made him a practicing Jew, in your words, is a mystery.

[blueunicorn6]

I am not a Bible scholar, but didn’t Jesus say that even he wasn’t here to change the laws? And now the churches want to? Doing the devil’s work.

[NoGrayZone]

I can’t help but feel pity upon those whom change God’s Law.

[CommerceComet]

In Matthew 5:17 didn't Jesus Himself say that He didn't come "to abolish the law but to fulfill it"? Seems you have Him abolishing it.

Given that the substance of nine of the Ten Commandments is clearly repeated in the New Testament and failure to abide by that is labelled as sin, it seems that Christians are still obligated to keep them. Not to earn our salvation but to please God. The only commandment that is not clearly repeated as an obligation to keep in the New Testament is the 4th Commandment on Sabbath observance.

[wafflehouse]

ok, sounds like you are on the right track.. makes me wonder where you got derailed.

And, yes, Paul was a Torah keeping Jew until his conversion as recorded in Acts 9:16. With his conversion, he ceased being a practicing Jew. The rest of Paul’s life after this moment was dedicated to spreading the gospel. How that made him a practicing Jew, in your words, is a mystery.

where does it say Paul 'stopped being a Jew'? have you read the end of Acts? in the six or seven trials of Paul listed there, he directly contradicts you there.

FALSE witnesses: Paul taught against the Law, against the Temple, and against Israel
Acts 21:28

Paul: I AM A JEW (PRESENT TENSE) and did not do these things
Acts 21:39, 22:3, 23:6

not only did he claim he was innocent, BUT THE PHARISEES AQUITTED HIM. (Acts 23:9) Would the Pharisees have acquitted someone guilty of these things?



whose side are you on?? The side of Paul, or the side of the False Accusers who say Paul teaches against the Law?

[Jaded]

In the early to mid-90’s the Bible was translated into Klingon. Seriously. Wall Street Journal had a write up on it at the time.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Glad I still use my KJV.

[21twelve]

Some of these changes may make a good talking point in a sermon as examples or how they fit into modern life. But to change the wording of the Commandments?

For example - the “affair-proof your relationships” might mean to change behaviours so you aren’t tempted. (Like Billy Graham always making sure never to be alone with a woman). Of course that cuts down on the rumors and lawsuits as well!

[luvie]

1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

[ChoobacKY]

Of course Paul was a Jew...a Jew who had converted to Christianity by divine influence. His words to the audience in Acts 22:3 were an attempt to get the audience to identify with him in hopes he could convert them as well. He then recounted his own conversion and the crowd in the latter part of the chapter rejected both him and his message. So you need to read further than verse 3 to see what really went on. This does not make Paul a Jew who practiced the Old Law.

In chapter 23, Paul was not acquitted. He made use of the schism between the Pharisees and Sadduccees concerning resurrection of the dead to disrupt the council thus clearing the way to escape. His words concerning the resurrection form part of the basic tenants of Christianity...Christ’s resurrection from the dead being essential to the core beliefs. He held his belief in the matter both as a Pharisee practicing the Old Law and later, after his conversion, as an Apostle of Christ...because the words were the truth. The Pharisees found no fault in him only on this point and that was enough to save Paul’s life. This argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so heated that soldiers had to intervene and rescue Paul. So, no, he wasn’t acquitted, just removed from the scene.

So yes, Paul was a Jew, and no, he did not continue to uphold the Law of Moses after his conversion.

So your contention, Paul is a Jew, is correct...in part.

[arthurus]

to have one criterion for Jews

[wafflehouse]

Of course Paul was a Jew...a Jew who had converted to Christianity by divine influence. His words to the audience in Acts 22:3 were an attempt to get the audience to identify with him in hopes he could convert them as well.

so, he is lying about being a Jew, or you are playing word games here. what is he then? My bible says he is a Jew.

In chapter 23, Paul was not acquitted. He made use of the schism between the Pharisees and Sadduccees concerning resurrection of the dead to disrupt the council thus clearing the way to escape.

this is utter and complete garbage. "baffle em with B.S." is not a valid defense.

The Pharisees found no fault in him only on this point and that was enough to save Paul’s life. This argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so heated that soldiers had to intervene and rescue Paul. So, no, he wasn’t acquitted, just removed from the scene.

do you remember what Paul was doing before his meeting on the road to Damascus?

Acts 22
4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,
5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.

How is it he was able to 'persecute this Way to the death', yet when he was on trial, suddenly he gets aquitted.
yes, he certainly was acquitted by the Pharisees.
AND suddenly you are an expert on Jewish law to be able to tell me what technicalities he was able to get off on?

So yes, Paul was a Jew, and no, he did not continue to uphold the Law of Moses after his conversion. So your contention, Paul is a Jew, is correct...in part.

Again, where does it say he did not uphold the law?
paul spoke many times, vehemently about Law in Grace in the context of Salvation, as in we are saved by Grace through faith but he never disowned the Law

[ChoobacKY]

My words are quite clear on Paul’s status. He was a converted Jew. He practiced Christianity. He no longer followed the Law of Moses as did the Pharisees and Sadducees. That is quite clear from his writings in Romans and Galatians if you will take the time to read them.

Yes, I am quite familiar with what he did before his meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus. Are you familiar with what he did AFTER his conversion?

In Chapter 23 of Acts, specifically verse 8, you will find that the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on the subject of resurrection. Doesn’t take a scholar of the law to determine that point. This disagreement led to such controversy that verse 10 records that the commander (of the Roman troops) feared for his safety so he sent troops to rescue him. Where do you find an acquittal here? Verse 9 records that the Pharisees in the crowd agreed with his statement concerning resurrection but that does not equate to acquittal.

And where does it say he did not uphold the law? Try the third chapter of Galatians and Romans chapter 10. It’s true he did not DISOWN the Law of Moses, he simply acknowledged that it was no longer in effect. The Law of Moses was necessary to lead men to the Law of Christ as he acknowledged in both Galatians and Romans. However, he knew that the Law of Moses would not save men. Only Christ’s law can do that.