Is Christianity unique or not?

[Minimalist]

Most bullshit artists are.

[Fake Messiah]

Ok I'll bite, what documents are you referring to?

Bart Ehrman (an atheist) and respected NT scholar believes we have in the NT pretty much what was written. These documents are first century. They have been discussed since the second century in an unbroken chain. Take your pick: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

THere is mountains of work done on every one of them. Read. Then get back to me and tell me how Christianity is not unique (with references of course).

Actually Ehrman is widely criticized for his defense of historicity of Jesus by the expert critics who pointed many errors and shortcomings he made – in particular Richard Carrier
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

In particular to those supposed documents that Ehrman claims exist this is what Carrier writes

Mistake #2: Ehrman actually says (and I can’t believe it, but these are his exact words):

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.

He actually says we have such sources. We do not. That is simply a plain, straight-up falsehood. I can only suppose he means Q or some hypothesized sources behind the creedal statements in Paul or the sermons in Acts, but none of those sources exist, and are purely hypothetical. In fact, barely more than conjectural. There is serious debate in the academic community as to whether Q even existed; and even among those who believe it did, there is serious debate about whether it comes from Aramaic or in fact Greek sources or whether it’s one source or several or whether it even goes back to Jesus at all. The background to the creeds and sermons are even more conjectural (the creeds might go back to Aramaic sources, but none attest to a historical Jesus in the required sense of the term; and the sermons almost certainly do not go back to Aramaic sources, but are literary constructions of the author of Acts, writing in a Semitized Greek heavily influenced by the Septuagint; see Proving History, pp. 184-86 and Richard Pervo’s The Mystery of Acts, just for starters).

So what Aramaic sources do we “have,” Dr. Ehrman? Do tell. And on what basis do you conclude they were written down “within just a year or two of his life”? How can you be so precise?

and so on
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10035

[I_am_not_mafia]

Posted on TTA

[Graufreud]

Posted on TTA

where did you get that information?

especially that Horus was crucified (by whom?) 

and 12 disciples? what disciples?

[I_am_not_mafia]

where did you get that information?

especially that Horus was crucified (by whom?) 

and 12 disciples? what disciples?

As I said from another forum. I posted a link. No idea if it's true or not though as I don't know anything about Horus. Hence the reason why I posted the original link.

Seems plenty of controversy about it when googling it from pro-Xtian apologetic sites though.

[Amarok]

Has Christianity massively ripped off paganism ?

You better believe it has

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11161

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890 

Other thoughts on parallels

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/294

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1151

[Mister Agenda]

The Horus/Jesus thing seems thin. Isis was married to Osiris, who was dead at the time Horus was conceived (but Isis used a golden phallus or the detached phallus of Osiris for task of impregnation). Not a virgin. There's no indication of the 'birthday' of Horus. No wise men were reputed to attend his birth. He was not depicted as having been from a land other than Egypt (Isis fled to the marshlands of the Nile to escape Set). He was home-schooled, like most gods, not educated in a temple. I don't know who the hell 'Anup the baptizer' is supposed to be, and there's no story of Horus being baptized. Or of any disciples. Or walking on water or raising the dead, though like any god, he was supposed to be able to perform miraculous feats, though his primary activity seemed to be tricking Set. No transfiguration. The titles are bullshit, he was Horus the Avenger, son of Osiris and Isis, sky god, falcon god, god of pharaohs, patron of Lower Egypt, Horus the Younger, Horus the Elder (may be two gods with the same name or he may have become Horus the Elder after winning a dispute with Set). He merged with Osiris to become Golden Horus Osiris, and there are stories where Isis brings Horus Osiris completely to life. but he wasn't very dead in the first place.

The Horus-Jesus connection seems to be mostly bunk.

[Graufreud]

The Horus/Jesus thing seems thin. Isis was married to Osiris, who was dead at the time Horus was conceived (but Isis used a golden phallus or the detached phallus of Osiris for task of impregnation). Not a virgin. There's no indication of the 'birthday' of Horus. No wise men were reputed to attend his birth. He was not depicted as having been from a land other than Egypt (Isis fled to the marshlands of the Nile to escape Set). He was home-schooled, like most gods, not educated in a temple. I don't know who the hell 'Anup the baptizer' is supposed to be,  and there's no story of Horus being baptized. Or of any disciples. Or walking on water or raising the dead, though like any god, he was supposed to be able to perform miraculous feats, though his primary activity seemed to be tricking Set. No transfiguration. The titles are bullshit, he was Horus the Avenger, son of Osiris and Isis, sky god, falcon god, god of pharaohs, patron of Lower Egypt, Horus the Younger, Horus the Elder (may be two gods with the same name or he may have become Horus the Elder after winning a dispute with Set). He merged with Osiris to become Golden Horus Osiris, and there are stories where Isis brings Horus Osiris completely to life. but he wasn't very dead in the first place.

The Horus-Jesus connection seems to be mostly bunk.

Thank you very much. Why (some) atheists want to discredit themselves with bullshit is beyond my understanding. 

As for Horus-Typhon connection

"Set[edit]

From apparently as early as Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 550 BC – c. 476 BC), Typhon was identified with Set, the Egyptian god of chaos and storms.[157] This syncretization with Egyptian mythology can also be seen in the story, apparently known as early as Pindar, of Typhon chasing the gods to Egypt, and the gods transforming themselves into animals.[158] Such a story arose perhaps as a way for the Greeks to explain Egypt's animal-shaped gods.[159] Herodotus also identified Typhon with Set, making him the second to last divine king of Egypt. Herodotus says that Typhon was deposed by Osiris' son Horus, whom Herodutus equates with Apollo (with Osiris being equated with Dionysus),[160] and after his defeat by Horus, Typhon was "supposed to have been hidden" in the "Serbonian marsh" (identified with modern Lake Bardawil) in Egypt."

There might have been some influence on Bible authors... and maybe not.

But why did Jesus have to run away to Egypt? Why not Parthian Empire?  

[brewer]

So maybe the story(ies) were not exactly copied. I don't think the whole son of god thing was original, let alone factual. Just myths repeating.

[Angrboda]

Was Christianity in some sense original and unlike other bullshit circulating at the time, regardless of specifics? No. It didn't take a creative genius to think up most of the shit in Christianity, at least in the broad outlines.

This reminds me of the challenge in the Quran to produce a surah comparable to the divinely inspired surahs inside it. The supposed point being that if you can't produce a surah that would pass for an original, it proves that humans are incapable of composing the Quran and thus it must have had a divine source. I suspect the point is a similar point of pride for Christians, that the uniqueness of Christianity says something significant about its source as well as its value in human history. I don't find either to be likely a correct inference from the facts. Uniqueness isn't really a signature of anything unless in that uniqueness it is shown that the thing in question also posssesses unmistakable goods independent of its claimed uniqueness. Only then does it become remarkable, perhaps. Regardless, I don't think Christianity itself passes either test.