Buffet Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? "Now wait a minute. That is a true story."

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world AND how can that be determined?

[tonjun]

You forgot to include NASB Translation there JW.

Did you forget to take the time to read my earlier post on this that was included in the original post?

I've read it and in conclusion it is misleading.

To say that "olam" Hebrew word is meant to mean "long duration" only is not complete. As there are other translations that say the word means "forever" as well.

It's like saying you can eat pizza hot or cold, but you can't eat it hot.
Makes no sense.

That is what you're doing here JW.

[tonjun]

Now I think I'll go crazy in my own corner while I chew on this perpetual seemingly cycle of an unresolved answer in this lifetime.

We are all in our own little corner . . . let's keep plugging away as energy permits.

Yes, thank you Zzyzx.

I feel much better now.

I'll get back to you on that once I've thought things out a bit more.

[Mithrae]

QUESTION Should Christian men be CIRCUMCISED ?

Answer: No. Circumcision was a physical sign of the special relationship God had with Abraham and his descendants. This covenant or formal agreement often refered to as the Covenant of Circumcision (not to be confused with The Abrahamic Covenant which was instituted some 20 years earlier in 1943 BCE) ran from 1919 BCE through to the end of the Law covenant, in 33 C.E.

This seems to be incorrect on virtually every point. You're talking about an "Abrahamic covenant" from earlier on when the guy was called Abram; it was on the occasion of this covenant of circumcision that he became known as Abraham. You're suggesting that this covenant of circumcision applies to Abraham's physical descendants; yet the passage explicitly notes both that it applies to foreigners who become part of the people (eg. slaves), not just physical descendants, and that merely being a physical descendant is not enough (eg. Ishmael) but rather being the 'children of the promise' as Paul puts it.

Meanwhile God's previous covenant with Abram is much more explicitly ethnocentric; rather than saying that he would become the 'father of many nations,' the first covenant outlines only the Egyptian sojourn of the Israelites and their eventual genocide and possession of Canaan (Gen. 15:12-21).


Of course I'm obviously not suggesting that Christian men should go out and circumcise themselves: I'm saying that treating ancient Israelite and Jewish founder-myths and quasi-political propaganda as being "100% true and accurate" simply doesn't work, and really is a problematic form of the disingenuous picking-and-choosing 'buffet Christianity' which the OP highlights. If Christians can derive some kind of moral or spiritual insights from those stories then that's great; if they feel dogmatically compelled to call them divinely 'inspired' or something along those lines, well, that's hardly a justifiable conclusion but fair enough; but when they go further (further than many if not most historical notables of Christianity and much further than the bible claims for itself) to suggest that God dictated every word it becomes quite irrational and, by making God a liar and a brutal savage on so many different points, even rather blasphemous.

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Should Christian men be CIRCUMCISED ?

Answer: No. Circumcision was a physical sign of the special relationship God had with Abraham and his descendants. This covenant or formal agreement often refered to as the Covenant of Circumcision (not to be confused with The Abrahamic Covenant which was instituted some 20 years earlier in 1943 BCE) ran from 1919 BCE through to the end of the Law covenant, in 33 C.E.

This seems to be incorrect on virtually every point. You're talking about an "Abrahamic covenant" from earlier on when the guy was called Abram; it was on the occasion of this covenant of circumcision that he became known as Abraham.

Interesting, I will certainly be happy to consider responding if you provide some clarification on your position:

• What exactly is the Abrahamic covenant (who are the parties,? what were the the terms? when was it proposed? when did it go into effect?)

• What in your opinion is the covenant of Circumcision (who are the parties,? what were the the terms? when was it proposed? when did it go into effect?)

• What are your reasons (if that is the case, please clarify) for assuming they are one and the same covenant?

JW

ROMANS 4:10, 11 - NWT

Under what circumstances, then, was it counted as righteousness? When he was circumcised or uncircumcised? He was not yet circumcised but was uncircumcised. And he received a sign+namely, circumcisionas a seal of the righteousness by the faith he had while in his uncircumcised state,

HEBREWS 6:13, 14 - NWT

For when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could not swear by anyone greater, he swore by himself, saying: "I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you."

[Mithrae]

This seems to be incorrect on virtually every point. You're talking about an "Abrahamic covenant" from earlier on when the guy was called Abram; it was on the occasion of this covenant of circumcision that he became known as Abraham. You're suggesting that this covenant of circumcision applies to Abraham's physical descendants; yet the passage explicitly notes both that it applies to foreigners who become part of the people (eg. slaves), not just physical descendants, and that merely being a physical descendant is not enough (eg. Ishmael) but rather being the 'children of the promise' as Paul puts it.

Interesting, I will certainly be happy to consider responding if you provide some clarification on your position:

• What exactly is the Abrahamic covenant (who are the parties,? what were the the terms? when was it proposed? when did it go into effect?)

• What in your opinion is the covenant of Circumcision (who are the parties,? what were the the terms? when was it proposed? when did it go into effect?)

• What are your reasons (if that is the case, please clarify) for assuming they are one and the same covenant?

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father: One was made with Abram and is entirely ethnocentric, concerning only the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt and their eventual conquest and ownership of Canaan(Genesis 15). The other in Genesis 17 also focuses on the land to some extent, but says that he will be the 'father of many nations' (and hence gives him the name Abraham); provides for the inclusion of people who are not biological descendants and downplays/omits some who are (instead emphasizing, as Paul puts it, the 'children of the promise'); and it is this one which is said to be an everlasting covenant.

Unfortunately for Paul and his followers, it's also the latter which stipulates circumcision in the flesh as a sign and non-negotiable condition of the covenant. I suppose Christians can choose to reject this Abrahamic covenant; or accept it by practicising circumcision (thereby rejecting Paul's views); or disingenuously pick and choose which sentences they'll read and acknowledge... or they could simply recognize that these are not the words of a deity and not "100% true and accurate."

[JehovahsWitness]

Thank you for your post... you identify two covenants if I understand correctly

COVENANT A (Genesis 15)

COVENANT B ( Genesis 17)

I'm not clear in their regard the answer to my questions:

COVENANT A (Genesis 15)

#1 who are the parties,?

#1what were the the terms?

#1when was it proposed?

#1when did it go into effect?

COVENANT B (Genesis 17)

#1 who are the parties,?

#1what were the the terms?

#1when was it proposed?

#1when did it go into effect?

If it's set out clearly perhaps I will see your point because as it stands I'm finding it hard to see what your point of contention is exactly. From what In can see we are both saying there are two covenants, that the latter is related to the first but is is not the same. Apart from the dates and possibly the parties concerned (clarification requested above) I cannot see where your post differs from mine.



Thanks,


JW

[tonjun]

If it's set out clearly perhaps I will see your point because as it stands I'm finding it hard to see what your point of contention is exactly. From what In can see we are both saying there are two covenants, that the latter is related to the first but is is not the same. Apart from the dates and possibly the parties concerned (clarification requested above) I cannot see where your post differs from mine.



Thanks,


JW

What I'm seeing is that Mithrae is saying that if Christians are to follow God's word in the Bible to the tee, that means you as a Christian should cut off your foreskin and your households as mandatory due to Abraham.

Since you are not a descendant of Abraham; but a foreigner to him.

And that would probably include on a side note, burning all witches to the stake.

[Mithrae]

What I'm seeing is that Mithrae is saying that if Christians are to follow God's word in the Bible to the tee, that means you as a Christian should cut off your foreskin and your households as mandatory due to Abraham.

Not quite; not due to Abraham himself or Genesis itself, but due to Paul (and to a lesser extent the authors of Hebrews, Matthew and Luke) who claimed that all Christians, Jew and Gentile alike, are descendants of Abraham and heirs to the promise and covenant God made with him (Gal. 3:17,29; Matt. 3:9 etc.) and/or some kind of 'spiritual Israel' grafted in (Rom. 11, Heb. 8). Jesus himself said little if anything on the matter as far as I recall off the top of my head, and Genesis obviously doesn't say "one day there's going to be a human sacrifice to atone for the world's sin and all the gentiles can start calling themselves descendants of Abraham." It's only if they believe Paul et al and fancy themselves descendants/heirs to the promise of Abraham that Christians - if they really considered those passages "100% true and accurate" - would be obligating themselves to abide by the terms of Abraham's covenant. But they don't, because their leader Paul was rather inconsistent on that score (instead associating circumcision with the law of Moses and pretty explicitly rejecting the practice, perhaps not too happy with what had been done to him as a baby).

[tonjun]

Not quite; not due to Abraham himself or Genesis itself, but due to Paul (and to a lesser extent the authors of Hebrews, Matthew and Luke) who claimed that all Christians, Jew and Gentile alike, are descendants of Abraham and heirs to the promise and covenant God made with him (Gal. 3:17,29; Matt. 3:9 etc.) and/or some kind of 'spiritual Israel' grafted in (Rom. 11, Heb. 8). Jesus himself said little if anything on the matter as far as I recall off the top of my head, and Genesis obviously doesn't say "one day there's going to be a human sacrifice to atone for the world's sin and all the gentiles can start calling themselves descendants of Abraham." It's only if they believe Paul et al and fancy themselves descendants/heirs to the promise of Abraham that Christians - if they really considered those passages "100% true and accurate" - would be obligating themselves to abide by the terms of Abraham's covenant. But they don't, because their leader Paul was rather inconsistent on that score (instead associating circumcision with the law of Moses and pretty explicitly rejecting the practice, perhaps not too happy with what had been done to him as a baby).

I don't know about Paul as a baby, that would be interesting to see his life recorded on a biography or something.

Where can I find that story anyways?

[Zzyzx]

.
Paul/Saul and associates, when developing their new religion, grafted it onto Judaism and its 'God' (perhaps to gain an air of legitimacy). BUT to make their religion palatable to Gentiles, they had to find a way to say, "God didn't mean all those things all those rules so we ignore them and our icon, Jesus, said to do so" (although Jesus was a Jewish preacher who did not advocate abandoning part or all of Judaism).

Once Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman empire, it was free to abandon Jewish rules and make up its own to please preachers and potentates.