who wrote the ten commandments and why ?

john west

are they to keep a lid on society rather than have people doing as they wish ??i wonder about this alot

Fanny Cradock

john west wrote: »

are they to keep a lid on society rather than have people doing as they wish ??i wonder about this alot

Well, if you are asking on a Christian forum the we would say that it was God who wrote them and gave them to Moses - Exodus 34:1. And while I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'keep a lid on society', they like all laws were written to bring a certain order and structure.

chozometroid

john west wrote: »

are they to keep a lid on society rather than have people doing as they wish ??i wonder about this alot

There were written by God, for the purpose of letting people know whether or not they were obeying God. They needed this as evidence for their own self, to recognize they were breaking a law of God. There is more to obeying God than just following "the ten" only. They are basic, fundamental laws, which create a sort of moral guideline. The problem is when you focus only on not breaking the laws, instead of allowing God to change you from the inside. Once you are changed, you will obey God's laws naturally, albeit with some difficulty. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

antiskeptic

john west wrote: »

are they to keep a lid on society rather than have people doing as they wish ??i wonder about this alot

There are at least 3 ways to view them:

1) Rules whereby society can be guided

2) Laws by which lawbreakers can be declared guilty (The Standard)

3) A means whereby lawbreakers can measure themselves and conclude they are lawbreakers


Eternally speaking I'd see the latter 2 possibilities as most operative.

Soul Winner

john west wrote: »

are they to keep a lid on society rather than have people doing as they wish ??i wonder about this alot

Paul gives the definitive answer as to why the law was given in Galatians:

"What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19

studiorat

Soul Winner wrote: »

Paul gives the definitive answer as to why the law was given in Galatians:

"What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19

Well I'm certainly glad he made such a clear and defined point. No room interpretation there anyway.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Well I'm certainly glad he made such a clear and defined point. No room interpretation there anyway.

Actually it is extremely clear and defined for anyone who bothers to read and study it in context instead of making smartass comments.

Soul Winner

studiorat wrote: »

Well I'm certainly glad he made such a clear and defined point. No room interpretation there anyway.

Yeah, so am I :pac:

EDIT:

More clarification

The answer to the first part of the OP's question:

OP wrote:

who wrote the ten commandments?

"When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" Exodus 31:18

But

"...it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator..." Galatians 3:19

OP wrote:

and why ?

"...It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made..."

Also Galatians 3:19

If you're confused as to who this Seed is, it is Christ Himself. He already came which means that the Law is gone, or should be, because it was added till the Seed comes.

MoveOn

PDN wrote: »

Actually it is extremely clear and defined for anyone who bothers to read and study it in context instead of making smartass comments.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to place what you must admit is not generally an immediately accessible quote in context in your post? Perhaps to suffix it with an "In other words, what this quote means is..."? The point of this thread (like a lot of threads on boards where people who are not overly familiar with a subject post in a thread to be helped by people who clearly are) is, presumably, discussion about something that could probably be discovered by the said method of reading and studying, but could be more quickly discovered by asking the posters here.

PDN

MoveOn wrote: »

Perhaps it would have been more helpful to place what you must admit is not generally an immediately accessible quote in context in your post? Perhaps to suffix it with an "In other words, what this quote means is..."? The point of this thread (like a lot of threads on boards where people who are not overly familiar with a subject post in a thread to be helped by people who clearly are) is, presumably, discussion about something that could probably be discovered by the said method of reading and studying, but could be more quickly discovered by asking the posters here.

I agree (although it was not me who posted the quote originally). And I would hope that if someone made a genuine enquiry (such as "What does that mean?") then the Christians here would readily answer.

For example, in the case in question:

The overall context of Galatians is that Paul is arguing that salvation is gained through faith in Christ. He is opposing a group called the Judaisers - who want Gentile converts to Christianity to be circumcised and to obey the Law of Moses. Therefore Paul demonstrates that the Gospel of Faith actually precedes the Law of Moses. He wants the Galatians to understand that salvation comes from hearing and accepting the Gospel, not by obeying the law (including the 10 commandments).

Paul states in Galatians 3:7 that God had promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through Abraham's seed, and that this meant that the Gentiles (non-Jews) would end up being justified (lit. declared righteous) by faith. So, Paul is saying that salvation will come to all peoples as a result of them putting their faith in a descendant of Abraham.

In Galatians 3:13-14 Paul identifies Jesus Christ as that descendant of Abraham, and that His death upon the Cross is the key saving act in which faith must be placed.

In Galatians 3:16 Paul bases an entire argument on the fact that the word 'seed' in God's promise to Abraham is singular, not plural. This was because some rabbis taught that the entire Jewish nation was the promised seed. But Paul is adamant that, because 'seed' is singular, it refers to one individual - who is Christ.

Paul now anticipates an objection from his readers. "If that is the case," they may well ask, "then what was the point in God giving the law in the first place?"

Paul's answer, and this is where Soulwinner's quote of Galatians 3:19 comes in, was that the law was given 'because of transgressions' until the promised seed (Jesus Christ) came.

So, what does that mean? What does Paul mean by "because of transgressions"? To answer that question we need to keep on reading in Galatians Chapter 3.

Paul goes on, in Galatians 3:23 to tell us that we were 'locked up' under the law (the same Greek word is used in Acts when the governor of Damascus had the city 'locked up' so that no-one could enter or leave). The idea is that the law shows us our sinfulness, or reveals our transgressions, so that we realise that all our supposed paths to salvation are blocked off. This means that we turn to the promise of Christ as the only possible escape from our predicament.

Then, in Galatians 3:25, Paul explains that once we accept salvation by faith in Christ then the Law of Moses has done its job - so now we are no longer obligated to keep obeying it.

Now, I can certainly see that Soulwinner's quote may seem a little obscurely worded to those not familiar with Galatians or with Christian doctrine. Any poster would be within their rights to ask for explanation or clarification.

However, my rather curt response to studiorat was precisely because he was not asking for explanation or clarification. He was making the quite false claim that Paul's words are open to a number of different interpretations. This is not true. Paul's argument, for those who care to study Galatians, is clear and unambiguous.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Paul goes on, in Galatians 3:23 to tell us that we were 'locked up' under the law (the same Greek word is used in Acts when the governor of Damascus had the city 'locked up' so that no-one could enter or leave). The idea is that the law shows us our sinfulness, or reveals our transgressions, so that we realise that all our supposed paths to salvation are blocked off. This means that we turn to the promise of Christ as the only possible escape from our predicament.

I always understood it to mean that as well, that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, something that teaches us of our need of Him. But the original word rendered 'Schoolmaster' is 'Pedagogue' which was a hired servant who looked after the kids of the rich instead of the parents who were either too busy with higher duties or simply just not around to look after them themselves.

The child was not allowed out of the site of the Pedagogue, they were protected by the Pedagogue at all times, on their way to and from school, they cooked for them, in some cases taught them certain things about the world, and they corrected them and disciplined them. But they were not strictly employed to show the kids their shortcomings as implied by the English translation in Galatians.

The Law definitely does do that, but my point is that the 'Schoolmaster' analogy is too grand for the law and it is not what the original is saying. A hired hand puts it more in its place. When the child reached adulthood they were freed from the care of the pedagogue. The Law was a pedagogue for those in bondage to it until Christ, and once He came they were given rightful heir-ship of the promise in, by and through Him, no more under tutors and governors and pedagogues.

So although schoolmaster until Christ is sort of on the right track, it still places the law higher than it should be. The real schoolmaster is Christ Himself. It is His spirit that leads us into all truth, and when we know the truth the truth shall set us free and whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

Phototoxin

I'm reading Hitchens at the moment wheren

"He points out, for instance, that when Moses orders parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (citing Deuteronomy but no chapter in particular) it is probably a violation of at least one of the very commandments Moses brought down from God, and that Moses "continually makes demented pronouncements."

The laws do seem a bit man made tho especially if the tablets could be broken. I'm skeptical. I think its more of a story as to how these rules came into being rather than the real way that they came into being.

They are still good rules if obeyed.

Soul Winner

Phototoxin wrote: »

I'm reading Hitchens at the moment...

Hitchens???

Note in your diaries that on the April 4th 2009 Christopher Hitchens will be going up against none other than Dr. William Lane Craig in a debate entitled: "Does God exist?"

I hope (for Hitchens' sake) he (Hitchens) has done his homework on Bill Craig because I can guarantee you that Craig will have done his homework on Hitchens and will most likely make him look really silly.

In saying that, of all the atheists out there I probably like Hitchens the most, I think he's very honest and very funny at times. I particularly liked it when he went head to head will Bill Maher and his audience and made them look really silly. See here

"But sometimes a cigar is really a cigar" oh come on Bill please...

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

I can guarantee you that Craig will have done his homework on Hitchens and will most likely make him look really silly.

Some friends of mine attended a public debate between Hitchens and Alister McGrath. They assure me that Hitchens does not need any help from William Craig or anyone else in order to look really silly.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Some friends of mine attended a public debate between Hitchens and Alister McGrath. They assure me that Hitchens does not need any help from William Craig or anyone else in order to look really silly.

Of course they do. No chance they had made up their mind beforehand?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&hl=en

Surely Craig would be better off researching his subject that researching Hitchens...

Fanny Cradock

wrote: »

Of course they do. No chance they had made up their mind beforehand?.

If you can find me this mythical neutral party then that would just be swell. Really, accusing somebody you don't know of being biased simply makes you look biased.

With the greatest respect, studiorat, it seems that lately you are trying to pick up on every sentence PDN writes.

Soul Winner

studiorat wrote: »

Surely Craig would be better off researching his subject that researching Hitchens...

I've watched quite a few Craig debates with atheists and not one of them has been able to adequately rebut the five good reasons he gives to believe that God exists. Another strong quality he brings to the table is his knowledge of his opponent's work. He quotes his opponents themselves and other atheists in order to support the arguments he presents.

Surely a good way of winning a debate with your opponent is to actually know where he/she stands on certain subjects and to challenge him/her on them? Atheists seem to think that all they need to do is show up at these debates, that it is a given that they'll win them. That might work with some people but not with WLC. Craig will quote Hitchens and show him why he thinks he's wrong and back it up. I don't think Hitchens has ever read anything Craig has written, nor does he think he will need to.

The problem with some atheists is that they are so convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong that they inevitably make themselves look silly in these debates when all they needed to have done in the first place was a bit research. At least Dawkins has the sense to stay well clear of Craig. I would really like the atheists to give better arguments and engage Craig more. It's boring at this stage to see them loose these debates simply because they don't have any positives for atheism, only negatives for religion.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Some friends of mine attended a public debate between Hitchens and Alister McGrath. They assure me that Hitchens does not need any help from William Craig or anyone else in order to look really silly.

Was one of these friends Francis Collins? Just kidding. He was at the one Studiorat linked. That's quite an addition to the audience and Hitchens makes a point of acknowledging his presence early on.