How Much of Christianity's Traditions originates in Pagan and Non-Abrahamic Practice?

...

Christianity is a very unique religion on its own influenced by almost nothing.
Its main influence was/is pre-Pharisaical Judaism (that is, priesthood, no Talmud and no "letter>spirit" mentality).
After that I read a lot about Neoplatonism influencing christianity but I never researched that so I couldn't tell.
Besides that, nothing really springs up.
I do know christianity influenced many other cultures/religions even if it was only by existing.

Islam has no legitimate claim to being related to Abraham whatsoever, apart from that the Quran talks about him. Its sort of like a Protestant trying to claim to have apostolic succession.

Judaism (aka talmudism) is actually younger than Christianity, and its unrecognizable to the religion of the old testament.

Really? How so, user? Don't they still retain many things? If not, could you give some examples of what they did *not* keep?

Don’t they trace their ancestry back to Ishmael though?

Should this read 'appease your gods,' not 'connect to'?

The temple, the sacrifices, the priesthood and the records delineating bloodlines confirming who is a Jew by blood. Iirc the former and the latter were destroyed in 70AD (the former certainly) and if you don't got no temple well you don't have an alter and if you don't have an alter you can't offer a sacrifice, and if you can't make sacrifices the priests are all out of a job.

Vid related and the follow up touch on Christ's sacrifice in relation to the Jewish/pagan sacrificial systems that came before

youtu.be/wksSoWq7l5o

This post was very enlightening. Thank you.

'Follow up linked below' I meant, the link isn't the same as embed to clarify

Hey Pastor Jimantha, what 'cha doing?

Attached: 7307a6ff71d1db27610f6a7067008512_c0-0-3518-2051_s885x516.jpg (885x516, 27.05K)

Tfw modern Biblical scholarship which the Church allows us to study and I was catechized with is heresy

Attached: images (2).jpg (225x225, 8.52K)

A fair bit, to be honest. It's entirely philosophical and aesthetic stuff, but there are a few traditions, for example, that have their origin in Greek philosophy. The theory of the Unmoved Mover has its origins in Aristotle's dichotomy of potential and actual; the concept of the "Logos" was borrowed from Greek philosophy to help the Greeks understand Christ better, and there are portions of Augustine's works that read like a Platonic dialogue. In that case, we used the methods for thinking that the Greek pagans had laid out and used them as aides to help us better understand God.

And of course there are certain Christian holidays which in certain cultures use certain pagan traditions, for example, during Christmas in countries that speak Germanic languages such as English, the Christmas tree was actually from a saint who used it to co-opt the pagan practice of smashing children under an oak tree for Thor. In the case of holidays, this was a good way to get people to convert without abandoning their cultures.

Some Christians don't like to admit this, and some heathens like to gloat over it, because they think it somehow de-legitimizes Christianity. But that's nonsense. Every myth and every philosophy with any amount of good in it was partially inspired by God, and it's therefore no wonder that we were able to use these things as ways of converting people.

...

We know that the Carpocrates influenced the "veneration" of Icons and physically dead saints with Syrian then Roman Christians (Against Heresies, book I chapter 25), even the Martyrdom of Polycarp proves this.

...

Yes- catholics. Catholicism is paganism dressed up as Christianity. They have the symbols of a million pagan deity's on their buildings and their clothing. The pope wears a saturn hat, for example. The pope also wears a dagon mitre cap, which comes from the half man half fish god dagon. On his dagon mitre cap he has stars of remphan. There are really too many examples of paganism in catholic dress and architecture that I'd have to expand this post to a novel to include them all. The catholic tradition of praying the rosary comes from pagan witch practice of using a knotted rope to count the repetitions of their spells.

But aside from just catholics, christmas was originally the day to celebrate the birth of the god mithra. Easter is the modern spelling of the Germanic pagan god eostre and the rituals on easter (the eggs, easter rabbit, etc) are all pagan in origin.

Oh ffs

You're welcome, user.

That's a pretty good and sensible post.

Sacrifices are not only to appease gods, they're a wager with the future: I give up something valuable now to hopefully get something even better afterwards. Pagans wouldn't made sacrifices only to appease the gods, though the rites and their purposes vary greatly between cultures. That being said, the sacrifice of Christ is not to be understood in the context of pagan sacrifices but more in the context of Judaic ones (that is Temple Judaism, not Talmudic; important distinction there).Careful, however, with the false but way too common notion that Christ had to die to appease God; that's not what the crucifixion was for.

catholic.com/tract/is-catholicism-pagan

How many times do the same stupid things have to get repeated? Like Easter - it's only called Easter in English. The only language of the Roman Catholic church until V2 was latin. In latin (and in Greek) it's Pascha.

I'd also add the root of the word Easter is the same as "east", which if you go back enough means "the direction the sun rises". Rising. He is Risen. That's the link.
One English monk had a wild ass guess based on nothing more than they sound a bit alike about eostre once and every turboprot has tried to hang their hat on it since.

This is a good one😂

chick.com/products/tract?stk=74

Thanks for this post. I used to be an occultist and one of the opinions I was always exposed to was that Christianity isn't original, that it actually uses things that were found in other faiths before it and that it's all a trick to gobble up your soul. Thanks for the new perspective.

How can you be a Christian and argue that the Pope wears a Saturn hat? Don't you realise that the very people who argue that the Pope wears a Saturn hat argue that the whole of Christianity is Saturn worship (a cross is the net of a cube)? You sling that criticism as if you're protected from it.

You're right, he didn't have to die, the Son could have been let be and continued on his way and the Father issued retributive justice to us sinners as we deserve instead. But he didn't, so a scapegoat was necessary.

Is it the case that the scapegoat could have been someone or something other than God the Son himself? Genuine question too tired to think things through and the logical implications of God providing/arranging a scapegoat that wasn't the God the Son incarnate voluntarily offering himself up.
Is greentext above a caution against penal substitutionary atonement? Atonment theories are something I never see discussed on this board and I know it's not on topic but along with the monergism/synergism/freewill/predestination/calvism/arianism debate and the trinity itself, atonement theories are one of the most interesting aspects of Christian theology imo

This except that it's a good thing. "Thou shalt not adopt the ways of the heathens" and yet Catholics exactly adopt such tradition.

Untrue. The New Testament builds on the Old Testament, it doesn't "replace" it. The Talmudic jews are actually more like Catholics in that regard, as well as the fact that they believe only the rabbis can interpret their Scripture and their reliance on tradition (the reason why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees)

Jesus didn't rebuke the Pharisees for no other reason than that they had traditions. He rebuked them because their traditions were wrong. In the very same passage where He uses the "traditions of men" phrase you guys love to use so much, He goes on to explain why exactly the so-called "oral torah" was wrong, by giving an example of how it contradicted the 10 Commandments.

We don't believe priests are the only ones that can interpret scripture. There are multiple interpretations of scripture in the church. There are just also those that are heretical. As long as you avoid heresy though, you can interpret scripture however you want. Heresy means defying the teachings of God, a la Gnosticism and the Solas.

We don't restrict interpretation anymore than you guys do. Can I be a baptist and believe that faith requires works? If so, where do I go?

Yes. Catholic tradition is also wrong.

We can't interpret the Scripture however we want as long as it isn't "heretical" as that's literally heresy by definition. We can only agree with the Scriptural interpretation that the early elders who inherited Apostolic teachings guided after Pentecost had brought us.
Not JUST defying the teachings of God (though the following can be considered defying the teachings of God). Taking the teachings of God and twisting it to fit your own evil is heresy. A Latin word derived from Greek:
etymonline.com/search?q=heresy

That's correct, but that stilll means you'd need both. I never understand how protestants have any other interpretation, and that's why I never converted even when I was an atheist.

You don't have one without the other. You don't truly believe if you don't live out your faith. How can you believe otherwise? Your only means of justification is the denial of free will and the fallibility of believers, even though we see both in scripture. By your logic the minute someone converts they would lose all fallibility to sin, which you yourselves say isn't the case.

It never implies that you'd need both. It says great works are what show your faith, you're still saved by only faith alone.
Imagine you're a heathen. You're arrested and taken to prison, and in the middle of all that, you convert to Christianity, you believe in Jesus in your heart, yet you don't perform any good works in captivity. Are you not justified?
That is if they've really converted. If they're pretending to be Christians (Constantine for example), it isn't the case. If they repent and sincerely believe in Jesus, then it would be so.

Speaking as a former atheist who was initially evangelized by protestants, your interpretation of Sola Fide to me was basically either a roundabout way of professing the catholic position whilst claiming to oppose it at best, and a free license to sin without repercussion at worst, Either way at best it was needlessly contrarian purely for the sake of it, and that put me off enough to turn from you.

Additionally, I don't know how you condemn tradition whilst still having a unified practice of any kind. Either Christ opposed all traditions or he didn't, you can't pick and choose based on what you feel is necessary. If you want traditions fine, but you can't condemn another church purely for the sake of traditions whilst you maintain them.

I had already agreed with Catholicism on other points, but protestant interpretation of the Solas were the straw that broke the camels back.

I'm saying works aren't needed for salvation, but are a great demonstration of salvation. Do you not get what my point is here?
He opposed all religious traditions, since they were in conflict with the word of God.
What "traditions" am I maintaining here?

Right, so they happen simultaneously if your faith is true. Ergo, you would have both. if your faith is true. You haven't contradicted me, you've just rephrased it to sound sympathetic to your views.
Being a kind person is a good work. A change of behavior is a good work. Good works aren't just things like donations to charity or volunteer work. We send priests to prisons for a reason. You're ill informed on our stance, like most protestants.
So you're saying you've personally never sinned since you became a christian? Not even accidentally? That's a very lofty claim for a common man.

This entire discussion is reminding me why I turned away from Protestantism: A sense of internal elitism. You may act outwardly with humility, but you have a "holier than thou" attitude internally. You may deride the church for pomp and circumstance, but I've yet to meet a priest in my life who strikes me as arrogant, and anyone that is is one I've never met.

Do you go to church on a weekly basis? Have you read the bible because you were instructed to?

Traditions can be defined as any activity passed on to others and repeated over time. Do you understand how many different aspects of christian practice fall under that umbrella?

Catholic Traditions have a meaning beyond the pure act. A meaning you would understand if you did any searching.

But it isn't.

Even if you only do the Eucharist once a year or even once every few years purely for memorial and symbolism with out viewing it as necessary to salvation and use grape juice instead of wine, THAT'S STILL A TRADITION.

Worse, it's a tradition without meaning to you all other than "the bible says do x, even though it's meaningless outside of recalling things we already know". Tradition for tradition's sake, which is what the Pharisees taught. The traditions they taught were of no benefit to the Jew. The one's Christ and his church teach are of benefit to all. That's the difference between the traditions of men and those of God.

And you don't need to demonstrate your faith with good works to have faith. Now do you know what I'm getting at now?
Does faith alone counts as work? Do you say that you need to go through works to even espouse faith internally?
I never said I never sinned after I became a Christian. We all sin, we're not completely Godly after we convert. However, does that mean you can't have such faith?
Look at David for example. He committed adultery and murdered to cover that up. Deep-down however, he still had very deep faith in God.
How am I being an elitist here? What "holier than thou" mentality do I espouse if attacking the very Roman church itself isn't one?

No.
Because I was instructed to? Just the simple act of instructing others to read Scripture counts as "tradition"? Paul literally tells people to.
A meaning that certainly isn't Christian.

The Eucharist/Lord's Supper is literally the Passover Kiddush that Jesus and the Apostles observed. Are you saying that grape juice as a substitute to wine is the "tradition" here?
It has meaning, it's symbolic. It isn't literally thinking that you're eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood (which is something of all groups non-Christian only Satanists would rejoice at)
Catholic tradition is tradition of man however. Man's corruption of God's own "tradition" if you suppose to abide by the literal definition.

Satanists and jews of course, though they're practically synonymous.

But they're linked, so they would always occur simultaneously. Like hail and a funnel cloud.
No, because it doesn't make sense.
That's what I'm saying to you! Your stance implies that either you are sinless or your sins are meaningless. To say you profess the way of Christ and not live by it is contrary to christian teaching.
But he also did things that were righteous to show his faith, including not only confessing to adultery but compensating for it to the victims and to god. To turn from sin and reconcile yourself to those you harmed is yet another good work. He didn't just say "oops" and leave the matter there.
You need to act like a christian in order to claim to be a christian. It's that simple. What more detail do you need?
That's sad
Which is a tradition handed on by the church starting with Paul and the Apostles… Again, nothing contradictory to what I said was stated here. Just an attempt to deflect the question.
Because the adoration and honoring of the sacrifice of Christ and his constant embodiment both within and though the church and its followers is counter to christian teachings I guess…

And they told us to do this in memory of Christ, for whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood shall be given eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
I'm saying the act itself, even in the apostolic age, was a tradition and still is, yet protestants practice it.
Christ is incarnate in bread and wine BEACAUSE cannibalism is a sin, and he would never force such an act on his followers. this has been the churches teaching since the very beginning and is documented not only in scripture based on the phrasing in the Greek NT, but also in the wrings of the early church going back to the desert fathers. Ante-Nicene mind you.
The only corruptions of Gods traditions are the Talmud, the Koran, and the 95 Theses. Each twist the truth to serve their own desires, whilst calling those who are true to be of Satan. Just like the Pharisees. Notice I never stooped to such petty insults. And yet you wonder why I called you an elitist.

So, you literally can't have faith at all without works. The simple act of having faith is itself works.
No, you're repenting of your former sins. You don't need to work your way out of that or even work your way out of sinning after that.
Yes, he compensated for the victims as any good person would do. Was that good work necessary for God to forgive him? No. Similarly, if I lash out at my mum and later bake her a cake in forgiveness, is the cake what forgives me or my pure act of forgiveness itself?
Claiming to be a Christian then doesn't make you a Christian. A pagan or an atheist or a Muslim or a jew could "act like a Christian", doesn't make him one. You need legitimate faith in Jesus Christ to consider yourself a Christian.
Even somebody who calls himself a Christian, does good works, but deep-down doubts/doesn't believe in Jesus isn't a Christian.
I pray at home or at others' homes, it's perfectly fine. I don't need to go outside to a Babylonian temple and listen to some rambling priest or pastor to do so (though it is a good way to socialise).
People who were guided by God to tell people to read the Bible.
More like claiming to be righteous and following Christ while at the same time having teachings that stray away from Christ as said here: as well as vain philosophies that are incompatible with his teachings.
Catholics, everyone. Obsessing over "eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood" is something I'd expect a mad heathen to say if I was an early Christian.
Jesus told us to do it. It's a tradition of God and not of man, and either way, it was a "tradition"/sacrament that existed way before. The Lord's Supper is the Kiddush meal within the Passover.
And we're all literal sheep.
Catholicism wasn't manufactured in Nicaea, it dates back way before and I'm not talking about Peter and Paul's preaching in Rome. I'm exactly talking about people like Origen and the desert fathers (who by the way were absolute degenerates) that led to the formation of the Constantinian and Theodosian church.
Even if you stopped at there, I'd still disagree with you. Again, you assimilate pagan/mystery religion, vain philosophy, and such theology formed by assimilating vain philosophy, and you call others "heretics".
Luther was absolutely right to call out the Latin church on that. It isn't Scripture nor tradition, however, it's criticism of traditions of man.
What the Roman emperors did with Catholicism?
Again, work-based salvation, rabbis/priests interpret the Scripture, reliance on traditions of man, obsession with vile philosophy, etc.
No wonder the Catholic church published and preserved the Talmud.

You also forgot the Zohar, but Catholics literally drew inspiration from that during the Renaissance.

So sin without need for repercussion or repentance? So the Catholic meme version of Protestantism is correct? You guys can just do whatever and not care because muh-once-saved.
Then why do it? by your own words you're saying you don't need to be a good person to be saved. I don't think Christ wanted wicked or apathetic people to get into paradise. Pretty sure he said the contrary.
Yes. Wolves exist. Saying you're a christian doesn't make you a christian. Being a christian makes you a christian. You must live your faith, not merely profess it. Otherwise it's just empty words.
Paul speaks of gathering congregations. It's not an act of vanity, it's an act of obedience to god.
But you don't know that unless you've read the bible…
Oh, you're one of those. Pic related. And with that my concern with this discussion dwindles greatly.
Literally read the greek NT.
The phrasing implies chewing on flesh rather than bread, even when the word bread is used. You clearly have very little knowledge of Christianity outside of your personal bubble. Hence all this conspiratorial trite and namecalling.
I've read their works and biographies and no, they weren't. You're literally just making claims without evidence or merit.
So you agree that Jesus is boiling in seamen in hell? Or that he was only a prophet and not the Son of God?
So you don't believe in the Nicene creed? That's a violation of the board's rules, let alone Christianity.
The only vile philosopphy here is your personal bastardization of christianity. I don't even think most protestants are as wicked and ignorant as you. And I honestly want to apologize to the vast majority of them for associating you with them.
And it's no wonder mainstream american protestants are Zionist sheep.

Attached: images.jpg (249x202, 6.36K)

Is avoiding sin "good works" according to you? I'm saying that you SHOULD avoid sin as a Christian, just that you don't need to work your way out of it.
Doing whatever you want is sinning and doesn't get you anywhere as a Christian except closer to the devil. It doesn't mean you have to go au contraire and try to work your way out of everything bad.
Wicked people can come to repentance if they're not total reprobates. They only need to repent and become good people (though that's probably "works" by your definition).
Exactly, but there's not just "living your faith" (i.e. living a life doing good works as a Christian), you can sincerely be a Christian without even performing any good works.
Congregations can be anywhere. In a forest, in a desert, at my home, at others' homes, or at dedicated temples.
Now, the early Christians gathered in private buildings because they were literally suppressed by the Roman empire, not because it's an act of obedience to God.
Yes? So what? People who God chose and were guided by the Holy Spirit told others to read Scripture. I know that because I read Scripture. What does that have to do with any of this?
I'm saying Catholics assimilated paganism so that they would convert. No, Christianity did not copy paganism, but it's clear as brown bread that Catholics assimilated paganism. Again,
What about the Greek NT?
biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/matthew/26.htm
How does this imply the phrasing implies chewing on flesh?
Come on. Anthony literally had dreams where he was tempted by Nubian boys.
I accept that Jesus Christ is my only God and saviour who died for our sins in Calvary and rose after 3 days.
I meant Islam and Talmudism aren't the ONLY heresies on that scale, that Roman Catholicism is one of them too.
The board rules says Christianity is defined as believing in the Nicene creed, not that I'm violating the board's rules by not being a Nicene Christian.
Sola scriptura and sola fide are my "personal bastardisations" even though they're literally Biblical.
They literally don't even call themselves "Protestant" anymore. Fact, loving Israel is a neocon thing justified with twisted Scripture, not a Christian thing.

When I'm saying "working your way out" here I'm talking about trying to balance your sins out by trying to do a bunch of good stuff to compensate. The only thing needed to cleanse yourself of the sins is repentance.

I'm kind of done with this conversation. You're Ahistorical, you're insisting pagan routs of christian holidays and practices (which I've already read and seen rebuked before), you act above the world, you claim to believe the Nicene Creed while rejecting everything else, you willfully misinterpret what I'm saying to keep this banter going and so you can get the last word however ridiculous it is, and you're constantly spiting conspiratorial trite.

Attached: tired.jpg (1200x1335, 192.98K)

Way to flee the debate.
It's literally undeniable that holidays like Christmas and many feast days for saints are of pagan origin. In Denmark and Norway, they still have feast days dating from pre-Christian Norse times (Jul/Yule being one of them). The Midsommar dancing around the green pole is literally dancing around a phallic symbol. Certain saints (Brigida and Brigid, even St. George and Hercules for example)
The most "debunking" I've seen is of the Two Babylons, which is literally attacking a poorly made analysis of Catholicism from a time we didn't know much about the ancient pagan religions as a strawman.
Above the world?
I don't?

I don't have time to waste on bullcrap
Saturnalia's dates don't align with Christmas, nor the entirety of advent.
K, well I'm a polish american so… that means nothing to me. That's a Scandinavian Tradition, not a christian/catholic one.
You could make the same claim about dozens of figures secular or religious if you bother to try drawing them. See the hero with a thousand faces.
K, well I just did it in 5 seconds with your given examples.

High and mighty, self-righteous, arrogant, elitist, etc.
You've twisted every argument about the Sola's and the church I've made to fit your self-constructed narrative.

I'm not leaving the conversation because I can;t rebut, I'm leaving because I could spend my time better doing something else. Like talking to a brick wall, or watching paint dry. More progress would be made at least.
Bye.

Attached: 1545704720464.jpg (276x183, 10.61K)

Sol Invictus does. It was the mystery religion that the Roman emperors practiced from Aurelian to Constantine. The winter solstice was chosen because it was a sun deity.
It's not only Scandinavian. It's also Dutch, German, British (and also Irish via contact with England), and American entirely (though the pilgrims rightfully banned Christmas, it was lifted after the revolution), and most importantly, it's Catholic. It arose after the "prosyletising" of the Germans and the Scandinavians by people like Boniface, they made Yule the northern Christmas.
Brigid and Brigida are not only basically the same names, but the way the goddess was worshipped was nearly the same way the saint was venerated. Their feast days are the same. It's the most obvious example for Irish saints, but occurs elsewhere in Europe (Saint Marina becoming a substitute for the Basque goddess Mari for another example)
Hercules and George are pretty obvious. Both being incredibly strong people who slaughtered a serpent and both were venerated (yes, Hercules was originally a hero, not a deity) the same way. Desiderius Erasmus (a Catholic) even remarked:

Sol Invictus does. It was the mystery religion that the Roman emperors practiced from Aurelian to Constantine. The winter solstice was chosen because it was a sun deity.
Ignoring how full of it a "Mystery Religion" sounds, the dates of the solstice vary, and it's typically the 21 or 22. Not the 25.
But it's not though. I've never celebrated it in my life, nor have I ever seen anybody celebrate it.
But unlike a pagan god, she actually did things. Unless you're going to tell me not to believe any ancient history because "corruption" Just like the Pagans do with their sodomy.

Attached: false.mp4 (490x360, 2.08M)

"Mystery religion" was the standard name for Roman military cults at the time like Mithras worship. And no, Sol Invictus was celebrated on the 25th. Aurelian proclaimed it the state religion on December 25, and calendars put it at December 25th. Catholic Rome admitted so:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronography_of_354

That still leaves the entirety of advent, Also, aligning dates doesn't magically make Christmas a pagan holiday. Not to mention the other numerous feasts throughout the entire calendar that I'm doubtful you could even bother to struggle finding like dates for. There are well over 150 in the modern calendar alone.
The greenery has protestant roots actually. Martin Luther drew comparison to evergreens and the nature of faith, one of the few meaningful things he's ever said. Santa is vaguely based on St. Nicolas, but you already knew that.
So this is just the classic veneration = Worship argument with a historical revisionist skin. Gotcha, and once again no. They may be venerated, but the reason behind such veneration isn't the same as pagan worship.

Attached: 1494286288_Nah.jpg (500x281, 18.72K)

The deity of Constantine when he legalised Christianity has its "birthday" transfer over to Christmas in the Mediterranean? Nah, just a coincidence, heretic.
Sinterklaas which is a Belgian/Dutch Catholic tradition vaguely based on St. Nicholas but it's also based on Nordic tradition. The whole reindeers pushing a sleigh is definitely a Nordic thing.
No, literally.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigid_of_Kildare

And Hitler was born on columbine. That doesn't mean they're skinheads. Also, again, this ignores the entire rest of Roman calendar, and the Birthday and greatest holiday in the church is Easter, not Christmas.
So, conjecture and speculation? So, even more meaningless. good.

The church fathers as early as 50 AD said it was December 25th as the day of atonement occurred during March 2th, then you add 9 months for the Virgin Mary's pregnancy. The only thing he did in the edict of Milan in full was simply make Christianity legal, not shift any dates around.

March 25th*

I forgot to mention that, since I was so caught up in other saints. But yea, Constantine wasn't even christian until his deathbed.

I'm sure this will be written off as propaganda though.

I'm just gonna assume that user was the one posting gay porn and go on with my day…

Attached: I hate this.mp4 (640x360, 499.52K)

I actually prefer CS Lewis explanation for a lot of it (where it isn't simply a fabrication by atheists or a demonic inspired red herring). To paraphrase: Just as even the unredeemed conscience of Man is still enough to rightfully convict him (ie, we still instinctively know right & wrong in at least a vague way), so too Man is instinctively drawn towards the imagery of the true Church, so we dream up myths of redeemers, sacraments & the like. It's a sort of semi-perenialist view that I don't think is heretical (feel free to correct me of course!) - and it aligns IMO with how you can have St James (and others like St Aquinas) talk of "Righteous Pagans", who were not specifically part of either the old covenant or the new.

That isn't license to run off and worship Krishna or something though, just because there's a possible superficial resemblance to Christ. The Church is the lifeboat - just because the occasional strong swimmer found some driftwood to cling too should be taken as the exception rather than the rule. Incidentally, I think this is what Pope Francis was TRYING to explain with his crack about some people outside the the Chrich possibly still getting to heaven - it just got misinterpreted as a call to Universalism. I hope, it's hard to tell.

no, because retard prots will try to destroy said traditions if we talk too much about them

gay marriage is considered abhorrent in almost every religion, abrahamic or not. its a purely satanic influence and practice.

Your homework assignment for today is to look up the meanings of the words "modern" and "modernist" and how they don't mean the same thing in a religious context.