What are the 10 Commandments?

[URAVIP2ME]

Then I hope you see that you just also made an existential claim -- that "there are no immortals...."
Which leaves us with us.

Starting with mortals Adam and Eve we are Not meant to be immortal but 'mortals with everlasting life on Earth'.
Immortals are death proof and can Not die. Mortals Adam and Eve could only live forever on Earth only if they obeyed God's Law. In other words, everlasting life anywhere depends on listening and obeying God.

 

[Politesse]

You know I am still not sure what that rule is about. People guess about it, but why in particular the milk and the calf. You may eat the calf, and you may drink the milk. So what is it about? It indicates that there are just some things that have been forgotten and that have to be guessed it. The answer, if we knew it, could change the meaning of the entire Bible. That is how it goes with scriptures. One different word can change it all.

***edit*** the relevance to the OP being that, yes, it really matters whether we actually know what the 10 commandments are or not. Its not good if we're using 9 and calling them 10.

There's this general thing about inappropriate mixtures. No mixed fabrics. No mixed seeds. No drowning things in the symbol of new life. I would presume this was a custom of neighboring kingdoms, which the priests found distasteful. Boiling a kid in mother's milk sounds like something an animal-sacrifing religion would come up with.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's this general thing about inappropriate mixtures. No mixed fabrics. No mixed seeds. No drowning things in the symbol of new life. I would presume this was a custom of neighboring kingdoms, which the priests found distasteful. Boiling a kid in mother's milk sounds like something an animal-sacrifing religion would come up with.

It certainly does sound that way, however 'Firstfruits' could refer to the firstborn, and boiling the kid in the mother's milk could refer to withholding the firstborn like Moses attempted to do when he refused to circumcise his sons. There's a law about honoring parents, so this could be a reciprocal law about rearing the children properly. There are other possibilities, too.

 

[Augustus]

Honestly not sure, I think it's a separating of the commandment don't covet thy neighbors goods and don't covet thy neighbors wife, really hard to decide how to count that one

Don't covet thy neighbour's ox versus don't covet thy neighbour's a$$?

 

[idav]

Don't covet thy neighbour's ox versus don't covet thy neighbour's a$$?

And from the Bible talking A no less. Ha

 

[Altfish]

Anyone of us on this board given 30-minutes could come up with a better set of commandments.

 

[12jtartar]

This is a serious question. What exactly are the 10 Commandments? We often hold the images of what Moses had written on the tablets (after he smashed the tablets god gave to him), but yet what was written on these tablets (Exodus 34) is not what we would typically think was written on them, and rather what we think was on them were more of the rules god issued (Exodus 20). Exodus 34:11 specifically states that god is issuing commandments to be upheld as a covenant. Exodus 19:5 also states god said to obey and keep his covenant. Exodus 24:4 says Moses wrote down everything god said, and it's a long list that spans a few chapters, with Exodus 24:8 declaring the much longer list a covenant. Exodus 24:12, however, is when god commands Moses to come to the mount to be given a list of commandments that god wrote. In Exodus 31:18 god finally gives the tablets to Moses, and Moses smashed them in anger in Exodus 32:19, which brings us to Exodus 34:1 were god tells Moses to make two tables of stones like the first, so that the same words that were on the one Moses smashes could be written again.
So, does Exodus 20 or 34 list the 10 Commandments?

Shadow Wolf,
The Ten Commandments are written in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21. The first part of each of these Scriptures was what God Himself wrote on the tablets of stone. Moses wrote the rest of the Laws, that is why he was on the mountain so long, forty days, Deuteronomy 9:17,18.
Remember the whole Covenant consisted of 613 Laws, dealing with all of the Jews actions. Only The Ten Commandments were on the stone tablets. Moses threw down the stone tablets when he was coming down from the mountain, when he saw what the people were doing. God, Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on two other stone tablets, Deuteronomy 10:1-4.

 

[Scrooge]

This is a serious question. What exactly are the 10 Commandments?

In Deut. 5 after Moses spoke through memory the Commandments, he says that the original Commandments that GOD had spoke were what was written on the Tables of stone.

(Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Then Moses shares this in Deut. ten:
At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. (Deut 10:1,2)

What GOD had written on the first set was what was found on the second set which was placed in the Ark.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments

In bold red capitalize no less! Wow!

Parenthetically, the Hebrew reads: "... [and] he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant -- the ten words."

(וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל-הַלֻּחֹת, אֵת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית--עֲשֶׂרֶת, הַדְּבָרִים)​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow Wolf,
The Ten Commandments are written in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:1-21. The first part of each of these Scriptures was what God Himself wrote on the tablets of stone. Moses wrote the rest of the Laws, that is why he was on the mountain so long, forty days, Deuteronomy 9:17,18.
Remember the whole Covenant consisted of 613 Laws, dealing with all of the Jews actions. Only The Ten Commandments were on the stone tablets. Moses threw down the stone tablets when he was coming down from the mountain, when he saw what the people were doing. God, Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on two other stone tablets, Deuteronomy 10:1-4.

In Deut. 5 after Moses spoke through memory the Commandments, he says that the original Commandments that GOD had spoke were what was written on the Tables of stone.

(Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Then Moses shares this in Deut. ten:
At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. (Deut 10:1,2)

What GOD had written on the first set was what was found on the second set which was placed in the Ark.

What is written in Deutoronomy 5 is what god told Moses in Exodus 20, and that is exactly what Deuteronomy claims. It's what god said to Moses. However, Exodus 34 is where god commands Moses to make two tablets so that what was originally written on the first can be written again, with Exodus 34:28 concluding so he could write the 10 Commandments/Words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone of us on this board given 30-minutes could come up with a better set of commandments.

Or perhaps even strong suggestions:

The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts


The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts

EDIT
COMMENTS (136) SHARE


Also known as The Eight Condiments.

#1 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t act like a sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou *** when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in Me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject.

#2 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

#3 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this through your thick heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey – Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion and I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

#4 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "Go f*** yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change."

#5 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynist, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. eat, then go after the B*******.

#6 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t build multimillion-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my Noodly Goodness when the money could be better spent (Take your pick):1. Ending poverty 2. Curing diseases 3. Living in peace, Loving with passion, And lowering the cost of cable. I might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the Creator.

#7 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that Interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?

#8 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is Into it, however (Pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it’s a piece of rubber. If i didn’t want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

 

[Tarheeler]

This is a serious question. What exactly are the 10 Commandments? We often hold the images of what Moses had written on the tablets (after he smashed the tablets god gave to him), but yet what was written on these tablets (Exodus 34) is not what we would typically think was written on them, and rather what we think was on them were more of the rules god issued (Exodus 20). Exodus 34:11 specifically states that god is issuing commandments to be upheld as a covenant. Exodus 19:5 also states god said to obey and keep his covenant. Exodus 24:4 says Moses wrote down everything god said, and it's a long list that spans a few chapters, with Exodus 24:8 declaring the much longer list a covenant. Exodus 24:12, however, is when god commands Moses to come to the mount to be given a list of commandments that god wrote. In Exodus 31:18 god finally gives the tablets to Moses, and Moses smashed them in anger in Exodus 32:19, which brings us to Exodus 34:1 were god tells Moses to make two tables of stones like the first, so that the same words that were on the one Moses smashes could be written again.
So, does Exodus 20 or 34 list the 10 Commandments?

In Judaism, the aseret hadibrot are laid out in Exodus 20. But, since there are 613 commandments in total, we don't focus on the 10 found there too much. They're seen more as categories that the 613 fall under, and can be broken down as commandments dealing with the relationship between God and men and commandments dealing with the relationship between men.

We learn that Moses received all of Torah on Mount Sinai, not just the "ten sayings".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In Judaism, the aseret hadibrot are laid out in Exodus 20. But, since there are 613 commandments in total, we don't focus on the 10 found there too much. They're seen more as categories that the 613 fall under, and can be broken down as commandments dealing with the relationship between God and men and commandments dealing with the relationship between men.

We learn that Moses received all of Torah on Mount Sinai, not just the "ten sayings".

I'm always fascinated and intrigued with how much a huge divide there is between Judaism and Christianity, despite them both claiming to follow Abraham's god and both using the Tanakh/OT. They both have the same characters and words (for the most part), but yet at times it seems they are just as different as Buddhism and Scientology.
Perhaps Christians would be better suited to claim they follow the god of Paul rather than Abraham?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Starting with mortals Adam and Eve we are Not meant to be immortal but 'mortals with everlasting life on Earth'.
Immortals are death proof and can Not die. Mortals Adam and Eve could only live forever on Earth only if they obeyed God's Law. In other words, everlasting life anywhere depends on listening and obeying God.

And how, exactly, is this "listening and obeying God" accomplished? Surely you can't have forgotten that A&E had no Bible, so the assumption is that God just told them out of His own (probably metaphorical) mouth. Did so with Abraham, too, and as I'm reliably told, Moses -- which is the cause of this present thread.

Yet, God stopped doing that a long time ago, and what are we left with? A set of self-contradictory, incoherent and incomplete rules of behaviour that we are supposed to understand completely and follow? Or do we get our priest to explain to us what we are supposed to do? And which priests? Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, (Westboro Baptist, a la Phelps)? The inability to hear God directly has led -- all by itself, and therefore at God's apparent acquiescence -- to so many denominations and sects (estimated at 38,000 for Christians, ignoring all the other religions, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic).

My early post in this thread speaks to precisely that issue, just within the context of the Ten Commandments: there are 3 (not 2) versions, and one of them (the only one that explicitly calls itself the Ten Commandments) is totally focused on issues that I bet even you don't obey.

So what's your strategy? Do you just decide which of the things the Bible says appeal to you, follow those and ignore the rest? Well, that's what I do, too. It's just that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs appeal to me far more than the rest -- so I can live more freely.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And how, exactly, is this "listening and obeying God" accomplished? Surely you can't have forgotten that A&E had no Bible, so the assumption is that God just told them out of His own (probably metaphorical) mouth. Did so with Abraham, too, and as I'm reliably told, Moses -- which is the cause of this present thread.
Yet, God stopped doing that a long time ago, and what are we left with? A set of self-contradictory, incoherent and incomplete rules of behaviour that we are supposed to understand completely and follow? Or do we get our priest to explain to us what we are supposed to do? And which priests? Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, (Westboro Baptist, a la Phelps)? The inability to hear God directly has led -- all by itself, and therefore at God's apparent acquiescence -- to so many denominations and sects (estimated at 38,000 for Christians, ignoring all the other religions, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic).
My early post in this thread speaks to precisely that issue, just within the context of the Ten Commandments: there are 3 (not 2) versions, and one of them (the only one that explicitly calls itself the Ten Commandments) is totally focused on issues that I bet even you don't obey.
So what's your strategy? Do you just decide which of the things the Bible says appeal to you, follow those and ignore the rest? Well, that's what I do, too. It's just that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs appeal to me far more than the rest -- so I can live more freely.

I find No one had the Bible before Moses wrote, besides Abraham and Joseph, Noah too had No Bible.
God spoke to Adam that to eat from God's tree would result in Adam's death as per Genesis 2:17.
There is also two (2) versions of the model Our Father prayer as found at Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4.
Jesus fulfilled the temporary constitution of the Mosaic Law for ancient Israel as per Romans 10:4.
Remember that old law was only for the one nation of natural fleshly ' ancient ' Israel. No other peoples.

Jesus' ' strategy ', so to speak, used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures explaining them for us.
As Daniel informed us at Daniel 12:4,9 and John at Revelation 1:10 that revealing of Scripture is for our day or time frame.
We can now easily travel ' to and fro' though out the pages of Scripture as never before in history.
We can study or research Scripture by subject or topic arrangement thus showing how the corresponding cross-reference verses and passages show the internal harmony among the many Bible writers.

I too find Ecclesiastes appealing such as the dead know nothing as found at Ecclesiastes 9:5, and that the Earth abides forever as found at Ecclesiastes 1:4 B. Appealing too the words found at Song of Solomon 8:6-7.

 

[12jtartar]

And how, exactly, is this "listening and obeying God" accomplished? Surely you can't have forgotten that A&E had no Bible, so the assumption is that God just told them out of His own (probably metaphorical) mouth. Did so with Abraham, too, and as I'm reliably told, Moses -- which is the cause of this present thread.

Yet, God stopped doing that a long time ago, and what are we left with? A set of self-contradictory, incoherent and incomplete rules of behaviour that we are supposed to understand completely and follow? Or do we get our priest to explain to us what we are supposed to do? And which priests? Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, (Westboro Baptist, a la Phelps)? The inability to hear God directly has led -- all by itself, and therefore at God's apparent acquiescence -- to so many denominations and sects (estimated at 38,000 for Christians, ignoring all the other religions, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic).

My early post in this thread speaks to precisely that issue, just within the context of the Ten Commandments: there are 3 (not 2) versions, and one of them (the only one that explicitly calls itself the Ten Commandments) is totally focused on issues that I bet even you don't obey.

So what's your strategy? Do you just decide which of the things the Bible says appeal to you, follow those and ignore the rest? Well, that's what I do, too. It's just that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs appeal to me far more than the rest -- so I can live more freely.

Evangelicalhumanist,
First, notice that the Hebrew Scriptures are called; The Old Testament, and the Greek Scriptures are called, The New Testament. This word Testament is really best translated Covenant. In other words the Bible is made up of The Old Covenant and The New Covenant. This is very important to remember, because The Old Covenant was The Mosaic Law Covenant and The New Covenant is the Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, Luke 22:14-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26. The New Covenant which was based on Jesus’ blood was a much better Covenant then The Mosaic Law Covenant, which was based on the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 9:11-15. Therefore The New Covenant Superseded The Old Covenant, Hebrews 8:6-13. This should not have been a surprise to the Jews, because it was written in Jeremiah, about 600 years before Jesus came, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Notice that the Bible says that the Old Covenant was weak because it made no one perfect and everyone under it was under a curse, a curse of sin and death, Galatians 3:13,14, 2Corinthians 3:4-11.
Jesus, himself said that none of the Jews obeyed the Laws, John 7:19. When you are under a Covanent, if you break one of the Laws, you have broken the whole Covenant, James 2:10. As is written in Galatians, everyone under the Mosaic Law was under a covenant that condemned them to death. Jesus came to release them from the Covenant of sin and death, which was a Law of Works, and The New Covenant is a Law of Faith, Romans 3:27,28. The Old Law Covenant just rolled the sins back, waiting for Jesus to give his Ransom Sacrifice so that sins could be completely forgiven, Acts 13:36-39.
Paul was a Jew and he stated several times that Jews were not under tha Law, Romans 6:14,15, 7:6,1Corinthians 9:20. No Jew was under the Mosaic Law after Jesus’s death, and no gentile was ever under the Mosaic Law Covenant, except for a few Proselytes.

 

[12jtartar]

And how, exactly, is this "listening and obeying God" accomplished? Surely you can't have forgotten that A&E had no Bible, so the assumption is that God just told them out of His own (probably metaphorical) mouth. Did so with Abraham, too, and as I'm reliably told, Moses -- which is the cause of this present thread.

Yet, God stopped doing that a long time ago, and what are we left with? A set of self-contradictory, incoherent and incomplete rules of behaviour that we are supposed to understand completely and follow? Or do we get our priest to explain to us what we are supposed to do? And which priests? Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, (Westboro Baptist, a la Phelps)? The inability to hear God directly has led -- all by itself, and therefore at God's apparent acquiescence -- to so many denominations and sects (estimated at 38,000 for Christians, ignoring all the other religions, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic).

My early post in this thread speaks to precisely that issue, just within the context of the Ten Commandments: there are 3 (not 2) versions, and one of them (the only one that explicitly calls itself the Ten Commandments) is totally focused on issues that I bet even you don't obey.

So what's your strategy? Do you just decide which of the things the Bible says appeal to you, follow those and ignore the rest? Well, that's what I do, too. It's just that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs appeal to me far more than the rest -- so I can live more freely.

Evangelicalhumanist,
First, notice that the Hebrew Scriptures are called; The Old Testament, and the Greek Scriptures are called, The New Testament. This word Testament is really best translated Covenant. In other words the Bible is made up of The Old Covenant and The New Covenant. This is very important to remember, because The Old Covenant was The Mosaic Law Covenant and The New Covenant is the Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, Luke 22:14-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26. The New Covenant which was based on Jesus’ blood was a much better Covenant then The Mosaic Law Covenant, which was based on the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 9:11-15. Therefore The New Covenant Superseded The Old Covenant, Hebrews 8:6-13. This should not have been a surprise to the Jews, because it was written in Jeremiah, about 600 years before Jesus came, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Notice that the Bible says that the Old Covenant was weak because it made no one perfect and everyone under it was under a curse, a curse of sin and death, Galatians 3:13,14, 2Corinthians 3:4-11.
Jesus, himself said that none of the Jews obeyed the Laws, John 7:19. When you are under a Covanent, if you break one of the Laws, you have broken the whole Covenant, James 2:10. As is written in Galatians, everyone under the Mosaic Law was under a covenant that condemned them to death. Jesus came to release them from the Covenant of sin and death, which was a Law of Works, and The New Covenant is a Law of Faith, Romans 3:27,28. The Old Law Covenant just rolled the sins back, waiting for Jesus to give his Ransom Sacrifice so that sins could be completely forgiven, Acts 13:36-39.
Paul was a Jew and he stated several times that Jews were not under tha Law, Romans 7:6,1Corinthians 9:20. No Jew was under the Mosaic Law after Jesus’s death, and no gentile was ever under the Mosaic Law Covenant, except for a few Proselytes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evangelicalhumanist,

First, notice that the Hebrew Scriptures are called; The Old Testament, and the Greek Scriptures are called, The New Testament. This word Testament is really best translated Covenant. In other words the Bible is made up of The Old Covenant and The New Covenant.

No doubt you will be quite surprised to discover that I am very well aware of that.

You might also be surprised to know that I am familiar with Numbers 23:19, which says, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” And there are other places where the Bible makes it quite clear that God does not change.

On that basis, of course, it seems utterly impossible that he could make a covenant, and then later reject it and replace it with another one.

This is very important to remember, because The Old Covenant was The Mosaic Law Covenant and The New Covenant is the Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, Luke 22:14-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26. The New Covenant which was based on Jesus’ blood was a much better Covenant then The Mosaic Law Covenant, which was based on the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 9:11-15. Therefore The New Covenant Superseded The Old Covenant, Hebrews 8:6-13.

I really do not get this “based on blood” thing. What does God need with blood? And why should Jesus blood be better than bulls, goats, sheep and doves? It’s all hemoglobin. Spirituality is not well served by killing things just to watch them bleed, in my view.

This should not have been a surprise to the Jews, because it was written in Jeremiah, about 600 years before Jesus came, Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Only with too much eisegesis (reading in, the opposite of exegesis). You have to interpret Jeremiah’s words (along with Isaiah’s, by the way) of having meanings that neither prophet would have known the first thing about. I therefore reject such readings as fantasy.

Notice that the Bible says that the Old Covenant was weak because it made no one perfect and everyone under it was under a curse, a curse of sin and death, Galatians 3:13,14, 2Corinthians 3:4-11.

So what? A covenant is a covenant, and whether it was weak or not, it was entirely at the whim of God. This was not like NAFTA: the Jews weren’t invited to the negotiating table to argue for the things they’d like in this covenant – it was just foist upon them and that was that. It wasn’t even a “take it or leave it” consideration. He’s God, after all. You just get on your knees and take it.

Jesus, himself said that none of the Jews obeyed the Laws, John 7:19. When you are under a Covanent, if you break one of the Laws, you have broken the whole Covenant, James 2:10.

In which case, one would presume, you pay the penalty, you don’t get a new covenant! I can hear it now, as the judge says, “you have been found guilty of breaking the law of murder, and therefore the court orders the government to make a new law regarding this.” No, usually, the judge would just pronounce sentence and bang his gavel.

As is written in Galatians, everyone under the Mosaic Law was under a covenant that condemned them to death. Jesus came to release them from the Covenant of sin and death, which was a Law of Works, and The New Covenant is a Law of Faith, Romans 3:27,28. The Old Law Covenant just rolled the sins back, waiting for Jesus to give his Ransom Sacrifice so that sins could be completely forgiven, Acts 13:36-39.

I find this to be quite specious. What is required for this “complete forgiveness of sin?” There was a time when you could buy it (the Catholic Church got quite wealthy selling indulgences, after all). The Christian view you espouse is the same, though. It just uses something other than money – the requirement for a very specific belief in something which is so contrary to common sense that it defies description. Heck, it doesn’t even require reparations – just belief! In my view, that’s not at all different from selling indulgences.

And also, in my view, it is a completely degenerate belief that utterly conflicts with very real and valuable human morality.

Paul was a Jew and he stated several times that Jews were not under tha Law, Romans 7:6,1Corinthians 9:20. No Jew was under the Mosaic Law after Jesus’s death, and no gentile was ever under the Mosaic Law Covenant, except for a few Proselytes.

Paul was a Jew determined to sell a religion (his own, which Jesus himself would have spat on) to the gentile world. That makes him, in my mind, a non-observant Jew.

And by the way, the Christianity I see all around shouldn’t really be called Christianity at all – it should be called Paulianity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To add one more comment to my thoughts on a "New Covenant," I just need to point out that God, being outside of time and therefore omniscient about past, present and future, knew of a certainty when he made the Old Covenant, that he was lying through his metaphorical teeth, since he knew he was planning to replace it.

How does that square with your exegesis?