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 Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).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?

[JehovahsWitness]

feel free to let me know where you think I've gone wrong.

I'll do my best; first lets "unmuddy" the water and clearly outline what a covenant is.

WHAT IS A COVENANT ?

A covenant is an agreement/a formal promise (contract) between at least two individuals. It is agreement that the first partie will do something for the other partie (sometimes based on conditions "bilateral" sometimes not "unilaterial"). The covenant (and this is important) remains in place until all the terms have been met ie until all that has been promised has been provided.

• PLEASE NOTE: A covenant It is not just saying something. For example saying "You have brown hair" is not an agreement. Saying Your baby will have brown hair is not a covenant (as it is not a promise to do something ). However saying, I will ensure your blond hair turns brown (or I promise to give your baby brown hair) is. Saying you will be a slave is not a covenant. I will make you a slave is a covenant ie a promise to do something.

Now let's look at what you have said and see if we can extract what you claim regarding the parties and terms (you may correct me at any stage).



1. Who were the parties?

...was made with Abram

The two paries were Partie A God (YHWH) Partie B. Abram/Abraham* (on this we agree. Feel free to point out of I am mistaken on this point )

* For simplicity I will be refering to the Abram by the name he later became known by Abraham





2. What was agreed /promised to be done ?

concerning only the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt ...(Genesis 15)

Your Answer : you seem to be suggesting God promised Abraham that he would send his descendents ("the Israelites") into Egypt ie God was promising to ....

A. give his descendents slavery.

... and ownership of Canaan (Genesis 15)

B. To give Abrahams decendents ("the Israelites") ownership of Canaan.

CONCLUDING COMMENT Your posts do not demonstrate a clear understanding of what a covenant actually is.

(i) Suggesting that the Abrahamic covenent included a promise that YHWH would enslave Abrahams descendents is utter nonsense since God initially associated his promises with blessings which have positive not negative effects on the objects. Breaking the terms of a covenant may involve "curses" but since (a) the Abrahamic covenant was unilateral and (b) it was made with Abraham (not his descendent) no terms could be broken even if a curse were involved which was not.

(ii) You seem to confuse a prophetic pronouncement (a prophecy) - in the case of Abraham communicated through a dream - with the actual covenant (what God promised to DO for Abraham).

(iii) You are correct on point #2 (b) the Abrhamic covenant did indeed involve giving the promised land to Abraham's descendents but that does not cover the entire scope of this covenant. I will develop this latter point in a later post

RELATED POSTS

What is a Covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1014803#p1014803

What is "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=776505#p776505

Are there Christians that are not part of "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=961920#p961920

Does the bible support the idea of two different groups of Christians?
viewtopic.php?p=1022933#p1022933

What were the TERMS and conditions of "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=776656#p776656

What is the Covenant for a kingdom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p911573

What is the ABRAHAMIC covenant ?
viewtopic.php?p=1014247#p1014247

[Zzyzx]

A covenant is an agreemen between at least two individuals. It is agreement that the first patie will do something for the other partie (sometimes based on conditions bilateral) sometimes not (unilaterial).

Are people bound by a covenant made by others?

Who, OTHER than the agreeing parties is obligated by a covenant?

[JehovahsWitness]

A covenant is an agreemen between at least two individuals. It is agreement that the first patie will do something for the other partie (sometimes based on conditions bilateral) sometimes not (unilaterial).

Are people bound by a covenant made by others?

Emphasis MINE



Yes they can be if the terms of the agreement cover others. To illustrate the law covenant was made between God and the newly formed nation of Israel. Those present bound themselves and all that would belong to the nation to the terms of that law, thus any foreigner living within their borders and any children born to its citizens would be liable to the terms even if they were not alive when the agreement was made.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

HOW MANY COVENANTS

Given that a covenant is a formal agreement to do something, and having established that what you refer to as the "first covenant" was between Abrham and God (YHWH) to give his descendents the land of Canaan without any mention of those descendents having to do anything, I find the following comment somewhat curious...

You've given absolutely no reason for imagining that there is some distinction between the two.

You yourself made an obvious distiction between the two, if nothing else but chronologically by refering to one being "the first" implying the latter (which younrefer to as "The other in Genesis 17 " was "the second". So you say there were two seperate covenants and distinguish between the two. Yet you then go on to speak about " absolutely no reason for imagining that there is some distinction between the two"


My question therefore to you is:

#1. Are you suggesting there is "absolutely" no difference between (to use your appellations) "the first" covenant (in Genesis 15) and "the other in Genesis 17"?

#2 If there are "absolutely" no differences would that not mean there was one covenant (repeated on several occasions ) rather than as you say two covenants?

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

JW


ps: We'll look at dating and terms once you have clarified how you refer to two covenants when they are both indistinguishable from each other.

[Mithrae]

Mithrae wrote:

You have yet to explain what you understand to be the terms of Abraham's covenant. (not to be confused with the "covenant of circumcision")?

As I've already pointed out more than once, the covenant of circumcision was the occasion on which he became known as Abraham: You've given absolutely no reason for imagining that there is some distinction between the two. As for all the terms of the covenant, you can read them for yourself in Genesis 17;

An ordinary intelligent person would probably interpret this as meaning that "Abraham's covenant" and the "covenant of circumcision" are one and the same, to be found in Genesis 17.

However Jehovah's Witness chooses to quote:

You've given absolutely no reason for imagining that there is some distinction between the two.

You yourself made an obvious distiction between the two, if nothing else but chronologically by refering to one being "the first" implying the latter (which younrefer to as "The other in Genesis 17 " was "the second". So you say there were two seperate covenants and distinguish between the two.

What is the reason for this duplicity? One can only speculate: You've so far made six posts addressed to me regarding Abraham but - correct me if I'm wrong - we have yet to see even a single sentence trying to explain any kind of relationship between Abraham and Christianity (at least beyond the level of some of Abraham's descendants trying to co-opt those stories for a nascent foreign/gentile religion). So it's quite difficult to understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Perhaps duplicity and obfuscation is the whole point of it all? If not, then why not just explain what you think the connection is?

I've been abundantly clear in multiple posts; that inasmuch as Pauline Christians consider themselves 'descendants' of Abraham the "father of many nations" (Romans 4:16-17), then the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his descendants when he gave him that title obviously applies and "Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:14). Why are you so consistently failing to present any kind of clear perspective of your own, if you actually have one?

[JehovahsWitness]

An ordinary intelligent person would probably interpret this as meaning that "Abraham's covenant" and the "covenant of circumcision" are one and the same, to be found in Genesis 17.

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

[Mithrae]

It seems reasonable to establish if we are talking about one or two covenants, what they were (ie what were the terms) when they were established and how long they were in effect BEFORE attempting to say if gentiles Christians can be spoken of as part of them.

So you're saying that Paul and later Christians should not attempt to say that gentile Christians are descendants of Abraham and heirs to his covenant with God, unless and until that is demonstrated through the texts of Genesis.

I have no argument with that position. Feel free to go right ahead with that demonstration. Whenever you're ready. 'til then we must accept that Paul's statements were erroneous or (at best) fallacious and premature.

[JehovahsWitness]

See edit.

I note you made the following two comments.

An ordinary intelligent person would probably interpret this as meaning that "Abraham's covenant" and the "covenant of circumcision" are one and the same, to be found in Genesis 17.

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

My question is now:

#1 Why did you refer to "two covenants " (and speak of "the first" covenant)?

#2 Do you then hold there is only one covenant (to be found in Genesis 17)?



Simple enough questions,




JW

GENESIS 15:18

""On that day Jehovah made with Abram a covenant, saying: "To your offspring I will give this land"

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 signnamely, circumcisionas a seal of the righteousness by the faith he had while in his uncircumcised state,

GALATIANS 3:17 - NWT

The Law, which came into being 430 years later, does not invalidate the covenant previously made by God

[JehovahsWitness]

NOTE: We need to establish some fundamental points before dealing with the relationship between said covanents and Christianity. It seems reasonable to establish if we are talking about one or two covenants, what they were (ie what were the terms) when they were established and how long they were in effect BEFORE attempting to say if gentiles Christians can be spoken of as part of them. Tomillustrate : One cannot talk about who is later effected by a divorce, remarriage or adoption without establishing who was married, if there was a divorce and if sonwhen it happened...and who may have been adopted.

So you're saying that Paul and later Christians should not attempt to say that gentile Christians are descendants of Abraham and heirs to his covenant with God, unless and until that is demonstrated through the texts of Genesis.

They can do whatever they want. However if you are attempting to engage in an analysis of the relationship between the covenant(s) mentioned in Genesis and gentile Christians in this thread, it is reasonable you present the parties and terms of said covenant.


In view of the above my question to you is :

#1 Is there anything in post #51 - LINKED HERE- you disagree with ? (Can you please be specific which point).
viewtopic.php?p=1014803#p1014803

#2 What is the scriptural basis for said disagreement?





JW

[Zzyzx]

Are people bound by a covenant made by others?

Yes they can be if the terms of the agreement cover others.

If your great grandfather entered into a covenant stipulating that all his descendants would be servants to an estate, would you be morally or legally required to be a servant to the estate?