storytime

And aren't you just a honey. :Cheeky:

Try as you might you can't evade the obvious; "the Jews" were a cult and their Hebrew god had his beginning in polytheism, so much so that Jacob-Is-Ra-El holds onto that polytheism within the name itself. Accept it for what it is.

Oh, and what is your problem with Rome being an imperalistic country? Should Rome maybe have given its rule over to "the Jews"? What do you expect from conquering countries? You gotta face the fact - "the Jews" lost.

btw, Rome wasn't a "cult". You sound like Sarah Palin. Rome was a country and provided a place for many cults to grow and thrive. This probably irritated the Jews to no end and I suspect that Judaism was one of the cults, however, sneaking under the wire via the new religion called Christ-ianity. Note how a Jew[Jesus] kept the tribe alive. The Christian could not go anywhere unless he had the Jew behind him. Even though a mythical character, the church fathers relied on the Jewish old stories, as they cherry-picked their wares and created a new god-man for Rome.

Toto

Yikes! Will everyone just lower the temperature a bit? Rein in references to body parts? I can close this thread if not.

Chaucer: we all know the history of anti-Semitism and the unfortunate NT basis for it. It's old news, especially to those of us who followed the Christian hand wringing when Mel Gibson's slasher porn movie came out. You don't have to shout. You need not assume that you are the only one who knows about this just because you can't get anyone else to join in your level of hysterics.

Chaucer

I don't speak for the Jews. Why do you speak _for_ the Romans? Why should I "get over" this conquest of the Jews? I still subscribe to the notion that there is a deplorable conquest mentality in the OT. So why do you constantly pretend that I don't? Why the blatant straw-man-ing?

And it's bizarre to me that you don't see the imperialism of Rome as being just as bad in its way as the intolerance of a high priest. The only way you address the Roman imperialism is "what is your problem with Rome being an imperalistic country?" Well, plenty, pal, plenty. And it's bizarre to me that you accept that as a fact of life but you don't accept the conquest mentality in the OT that way, confining your twisted knickers to OT things only, like Jacob and Esau.

That's a double standard. Either one goes complacent over both the OT and Roman imperialism or gets twisted knickers over both. Failing either, one is just a bigot.

storytime

Well young man, I'm not the least bit concerned about your personal problems or with your self-identification as a bigot. I suspect at some point in time you'll recover from that malady.

And...you may address me as Ms. but not "pal".

Chaucer

You're not very good at moral indignation, are you? At least, I get my knickers in a twist over both the OT and Roman imperialism. You don't. Instead, you write like a paid shill of the Roman Empire. Cafeteria indignation, anyone? So in fact, you're the bigot, not me. You call me a bigot, even when I say ad nauseum that the conquering mentality of the OT and the imperialism of the Roman Empire are equally deplorable. Evidently, you're not here to actually read anyone else you have "discussions" with. Oh my, no. Straw-man-ing is more your speed.

You have not addressed Word One about the abuses of Roman imperialism. Instead, all you do is just accept Roman imperialism as a fact of life. I don't do that with the deplorable conquering mentality of the OT. So why do you just accept Roman imperialism as a fact of life instead? Why? Who's paying you?

Chaucer

Toto

This forum is for the rational discussion of Biblical Criticism and/or History, not for displays of moral indignation.

It's time to close this thread.