Are you joking? The OT was edited to be included as an obvious source for Christ, but they never considering Jewish as a important religion, quite otherwise. The texts of the time quickly talk about the gospels as erasing the OT, a new deal, etc. and often using the jews as cullprints of anything they did. Christianism was important, not Jews, you know, Constantine didnt pretend he saw the convenant ark but a cross.
It is interesting that the questions involved pagan religions but it turned to discussion of Hebrew religion. I am curious why?
Because most of times the term pagan refers to not christians, who used it to call in derrogatory ways religious country-cults as oposed to big metropolitan cults (in this case themselves). Obviously, if Pagans are those "primitive" and "agrary" religions pre-christians, jewish come in the bag. But the reason why Hebrews are used as comparassion is because you proposed it: I'm thinking specifically of religions contemporary to to the Biblical Old Testament.
So you are comparing all other religions (let's ignore the term pagan) with Hebrewish religion, which was the religion of the old testament.
Originally Posted by JCamilo
It wasn’t a question to compare other religions with Hebrew. I agree that we may stop using pagan but replace it with ancient religions. However, it will limit us to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greek, or Roman. I think we can bypass the limitation of pagan. We can’t forget that Mithra resembles Hindu Mitra, for examples. There are much more religions. The questions that OP asked is question interesting.
Well, the OT says about religions at the time of the biblical OT, so, pre-christians elsewhere I guess
Anyways, it became comparing when I pointed Hebrewish religion didn't much to convert, not in the world wide sense christians and islamic do.
No, they didn’t. I think that it is quite interesting to discuss theocracy in other religions. But I have noticed that discussion about other religions most of the time end with discussing Christianity or Isalm.Well, the OT says about religions at the time of the biblical OT, so, pre-christians elsewhere I guess
Anyways, it became comparing when I pointed Hebrewish religion didn't much to convert, not in the world wide sense christians and islamic do.
I was just curious why.
Dont you know, because the other religions were myths. They really didnt believe in it, just liked the stories
Hm......I would argue that considering the fact that people were engaged in practicing it. Look at ancient cults practices. They had to deeply believe it to be a part of it.Dont you know, because the other religions were myths. They really didnt believe in it, just liked the stories
I was joking, man (well, with the partial truth of why)
Okay......but I still would argue "partial truth"I was joking, man (well, with the partial truth of why)
Well, it is definitely a cuirosity. As far I am concerned I answered the curious propositions of Camilo, having kept the subject prior to that.
You haven’t answered, yet.
But please, don’t take it personally. I have just asked why people can’t discuss theocracy of other religions without bringing discussion back to Jew and Old Testament.
Sorry I already said that I answered the original question for what it was.You haven’t answered, yet.
But please, don’t take it personally. I have just asked why people can’t discuss theocracy of other religions without bringing discussion back to Jew and Old Testament.
What do you mean by don't take it personally? Do you want me to take it yoursally? Tell me how. I'll do it and practice to see how it comes out.
Hehehe……I mean by not taking personally that I didn’t just ask that question in response to your posts but I have noticed the tendency of avoiding discussing other religions on other forums.
Okay, fine. But I was up to my knees in that context with Camilo, who was the one actually taking the subject there. I didn't see other posts as being so specific about the Jews in isolation. But it is indeed a curiously curious curiosity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote