BobRyan said:
Is it true that in "all the Bible" the command "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise"
Eph 6:2 -- in your POV?
No, there are other Commandments outside of the 10 that also have a promise that occur before the 10 are listed.
Exactly!!!
IN Eph 6:2 Paul is specifically singling out the TEN as applicable to NT Christians.
So then Christ affirms that it is not allowed to edit/set/aside the Commandment of God in Mark 7:7-13 where the TEN are most certainly included.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching
as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside
the commandment of God, you hold the
tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “
All too well you reject
the commandment of God, that you may keep
your tradition. 10 For
Moses said, ‘
Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11
But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me
is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift
to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13
making the word of God of no effect through
your tradition which you have
handed down. And many such things you do.”
========================================
Just at the very moment you "wished" to insert the idea that there is no such thing as singling out the TEN as included in the moral law of God applicable to all NT Christians (A point that all Christian denominations affirm) -- you then shoot your suggestion in the foot by admitting that this is exactly what Paul is doing in Eph 6:2.
A conclusion we have demonstrated repeatedly in our discussions Leaf and I thank you once again for setting that illustration up "again".
Christ makes it clear - editing via man-made tradition is condemned "sola scriptura" in Mark 7
But when it comes to editing, the issue still remains of whether it is the principle that Paul is addressing or the letters.
Not true since you already admitted that Eph 6:2 is specficially about the TEN being applicable to NT saints.
Interesting that even you admitted to this - since it shoots a lot of your other suggestions in the foot so to speak.
It doesn't make sense to single out the Ten Commandments when it comes to whether one commandment should be edited
And yet you just admitted to Paul doing that very thing in Eph 6:2.
IT will be interesting to see if you can find a way out of your own affirmation of the very point you reject - seen in Eph 6:2
any more - or any less - than any other commandment. That's the key issue in this thread
Not true.
Affirming that the Ten are specifically singled out and applicable to NT saints in Eph 6:2 -- as you just did - pretty much shoots your arguments against the TEN in the head.
That point remains.
The fact that Heb 10:4-12 puts an end to animal sacrifices at the cross --- does not change the fact that the TEN remain valid as Paul points out in Eph 6:2 and as even you admitted.
It has always been possible to separate the Ten Commandments
As Paul did in his affirmation of the TEN still binding on the NT saints.
Not sure how you can ever work around that Bible detail given that you have already affirmed it.
We can separate other laws, as well. We could say the laws that contain the word "clean" and the laws that don't, for example.
Indeed - you could start a thread on Lev 11 and try to argue out of Lev 11 being applicable - but it would not change the TEN affirmed in Eph 6:2 (the topic of this thread).
Sometimes your posts reveal that you wish a given thread were on "a different topic" - but to address that - you need an actual thread on that very topic you wish to discuss "instead" of the topic of the thread you post such a suggestion on.
