James Irungu lied on quora about "second commandment"

Why isn't the adulation of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic faith considered idol worship?
https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-adulation-of-the-Virgin-Mary-in-the-Catholic-faith-considered-idol-worship/answer/James-Irungu-1

James Irungu

January 29

Lives in Nairobi, Kenya

Several years back, the second commandment was not in their bible; it had been deliberately removed so that so that it might not convict them of idolatry. Instead they had pushed the third into second place and so on until the tenth which they had split into two to make up for the missing one. It is true they adore, venerate, worship, pray to her(the hail Mary) and shower her with all kinds of praises. To them that is not idol worship. Isaiah 48:11 is explicit, God cannot give His glory to another; why should we? Why would one worship a fellow human being instead of God? That is the highest form of idolatry, sanitized.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

“the second commandment was not in their bible; it had been deliberately removed so that so that it might not convict them of idolatry”

This is a lie.

The words that you consider as “II Commandment” have never been deleted from Catholic Bibles, it is just that we consider these words as part of “I Commandment”.

James Irungu

Wed

Please follow the link below to have a wider view of my claim. It would be prudent not argue about what you don’t know; ask and it will be shown you.

Roman Catholic Church Version
https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romancatholic-tencommandments.html

James Irungu

Wed (in parallel with previous)

FYI I am a former Roman Catholic so I know each and every detail. You can pull this from the web if you please. I don’t joke with matters concerning the Word. Read below and tell me what you think. Where is the part about graven images? It was removed deliberately because they know their churches are full of them and are part of their worship. You can’t fool everybody all times.

[image of both versions side by side]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

The “RC version” is not a quote from the Bible, it is the Catechism version, where each commandment is given in a very short statement.

It is not a deletion in the Bible text it is that “I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me” resumes all verses up to 20:6, precisely as catechism version also omits the creation week reference for Sabbath commandment, and the promise of long life to commandment about honouring parents.

The version given in the catechism is meant to be easier to learn by heart than the full chapter in the Bible.

James Irungu

Wed

Please stop justifying what even the blind can see; that part of the second commandment was removed on purpose. The Roman Catholic church, if in the real sense you can call it that, is full of idols and having that law in place would raise eyebrows. That’s why it was removed. Look at RC commandment number three, since when did Sunday become a sabbath? They have the law right in their faces yet they choose to disobey just because it is still not a dogma. They tried to hide under a veil but you cannot short change God’s word. Let me remind you again I was one of them and I noticed the anomaly even before I was thirteen. You speak of the catechism like it preceded the bible; it came after the bible, 1555 to be precise. Your catechism would rightly omit the week reference of the Sabbath on purpose: it is the Roman catholic church that changed the worship day from Saturday to the first day of the week. Can you tell us why the catechism would differ with the bible? What would be the logic of teaching what your very bible, according to you, has something different? I reiterate my earlier stand: that law was removed on purpose; not to accuse the church fathers of double standards or rather defying the bible in part on the Mosaic Law particularly. The sources I picked from are written by different authors and there are many more with same sentiments. Does it mean they are wrong and the RC have the appropriate stand? The book of Revelation warns those who remove from the word of God, they have a reward waiting for them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

Look here, the first two commandments are given in short version. So were more than one of the following.

1) I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
= Exodus 20:[2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

2) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
= Exodus 20:[7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.

As you can see, the second commandment takes on exactly where the first leaves off in the Bible. Verse 7 follows verse 6. No verse is deleted.

Now, what you could pretend is we divide the Bible text wrong, see below, and that verse 4 to 6 should be a separate commandment. This was discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas, here:

The moral precepts of the old law (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 100, A. 4)
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm#article4

Objection 1. It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably distinguished from one another. For worship is a virtue distinct from faith. Now the precepts are about acts of virtue. But that which is said at the beginning of the decalogue, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," belongs to faith: and that which is added, "Thou shalt not make . . . any graven thing," etc. belongs to worship. Therefore these are not one precept, as Augustine asserts (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi), but two.

…

Reply to Objection 1. Worship is merely a declaration of faith: wherefore the precepts about worship should not be reckoned as distinct from those about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship rather than about faith, because the precept about faith is presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept of charity. For just as the first general principles of the natural law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no promulgation; so also to believe in God is a first and self-evident principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that cometh to God, must believe that He is" (Hebrews 11:6). Hence it needs no other promulgation that the infusion of faith.

So, back from 1555 you go back to 13th C. and from 13th C. St. Thomas sends you back to 4th C. and St. Augustine of Hippo.

"part of the second commandment was removed on purpose"

Yes, on the very good purpose of making a catechism lecture easier to recall than the actual text in the Bible. Jews learned it by heart, but didn't also have Creed and Lord's Prayer to learn by heart.

Did our Lord ever shorten commandments or approve of those who did? Look at what we call the fourth one:

Exodus 20:[12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

Matthew 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Yes, Our Lord gave a shorter version.

“You speak of the catechism like it preceded the bible; it came after the bible,”

I am well aware it came after the Bible, but it also did so for a purpose of being easier to learn doctrine from.

Now, first three commandments - as we count them - in the Exodus text each involves one Old Testament application as to ritual.

I => no images back then. God had not become man, so could not be depicted, and depicting his saints but not Himself might give them a psychological higher importance. Now Christ can be depicted and therefore so can His saints.

II => Adonai as name of God, rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit

III => Sabbath rather than first day, rest from creation week rather than resurrection and pentecost, as Lord’s day.

You do not find one single Christian confession that claims all three of these is of primary importance.

Sabbatarian confessions usually do not insist on Tetragrammaton as primary name of God, like JW’s do, and JW’s are Sunday worshippers and most Puritans do neither, but are very fond of your dividing verses 4 to 6 into a separate commandment.

To prove that no Bible text was deleted, the 1555 catechism which is for priests, cites verses 2 to 6 in full for first commandment.

// THE FIRST COMMANDMENT : "I am the lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the lord thy god, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."//

I cited it here, in parallel with Russian Orthodox I and II commandments, as Filaret of Moscow actually agrees with you on how the commandments are divided, but not on how the “second” commandment applies today:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) (post on Trent “I”, Filaret “I-II”).
https://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-first-commandment.html

According to wiki, the Catechism of Trent is actually from 1566.

James Irungu

22h ago

The fact remains they were removed for a sinister purpose; any new comer would hardly see the difference and would never see what is supposed to be there and what is there in the spur of the moment. I told you I am a former RC follower and until I learnt to read and to write, I never new the portion about ‘graven images’ ever existed. The ten commandments are I know off my heart miss that detail. I wonder how may more have missed that and never got to know the truth. There is something about RCC over the centuries that you perhaps don’t know, when they are caught in fix, they maintain a simple stance: silence. They know arguing will expose them all the more. You have tried but your argument is not convincing at all because they would have ‘abbreviated’ the whole bible for simpler understanding. I am sure that Rome did not have a shortage of paper and neither the brains to understand five, yes, only five extra verses from the catechism. It is interesting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

It was actually the Protestants who were newcomers to Protestantism, and the reference to “Bible alone” was added for a sinister purpose.

“I told you I am a former RC follower and until I learnt to read and to write, I never new the portion about ‘graven images’ ever existed.”

Yeah, so? I am a former Protestant and knew it existed before converting.

“There is something about RCC over the centuries that you perhaps don’t know, when they are caught in fix, they maintain a simple stance: silence.”

Care to give examples that I can’t refute (unlike your claim verse 4 was removed from our Exodus 20)?

Plus, didn’t you on the other thread where you removed your answer when my answers to you and that lady became bothersome?

“You have tried but your argument is not convincing at all because they would have ‘abbreviated’ the whole bible for simpler understanding.”

You forget that the catechism of 1566 very much did show all verses. It just grouped verses 2 through 6 under same first commandment. Will you delete your answer now, to be able to remain silent on that one?

James Irungu

20h ago

Search the web, it is all there. Catholicism is a sham in general. Here you are convincing me they did not remove anything while is clear they did. Hiding a lie will not change what they did. Your last sentence is just a claim like any other RCC fuss. I am at liberty to delete my content or block anyone to avoid arguing endlessly or rather hear lie upon a lie. Look at the screen shot below, in my answer below, what is lacking on the RCC column? How much space would the proper contents occupy or exist? What is not in the bible does not deserve to be there because it worthless, what is there should remain; anything extra-biblical is nothing but the wish of an individual. The bible should not be given direction, rather it gives direction; the same one they altered to fit in their wishes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Here you are convincing me they did not remove anything while is clear they did.”

So did Our Lord in Matthew 19:19. Shortening while citing is not the same as removing from Bible text.

Ten thousand hits on google agreeing with you won’t remove this solid fact and the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566 cited ALL the text of Exodus 20:2–6, removing nothing, when giving First Commandment. It will just mean that ten thousand sites reflect a sham claim by Protestantism (not the only one by the way, but one of the more aggressively anti-Catholic ones).

“Your last sentence is just a claim like any other RCC fuss.”

Not at all, I linked to a blog of mine setting side by side comparable parts of Trentine catechism and that of Filaret of Moscow. If you had gone to the link and read, you would have known I had backing for the claim.

The Trentine catechism has a very long section on First commandment, and it’s too long for me to write just for lying on a blog, whatever I may be worth as to honesty, do take my laziness into account!