Is Christianity unique or not?

[Whateverist]

On one hand there is a claim that

"Christians just doing what they always have been doing and that is taking other people's mythology and incorporating them into their own."

On the other hand a Christian author of this article argues that it is not the case

https://probe.org/the-pagan-connection-d...religions/ 

What can you say about that except that the author is a xtard/idiot ?
-----

Thank you very much for your opinion

Sorry.  I looked the article over but it didn't draw me in.  So my view isn't drawn from that, but do feel free to highlight a quote you think might be of interest.

But on the face of it the number of denominations and factions within denominations with in it, we see that Christianity isn't even unique unto itself.  Historically .. well that's where you could make a timeline to help visualize when each faction split off and perhaps not the reason. If Christianity ever was unique, it sure didn't stay that way for long.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Actually I was pointing out how Stevell is a hypocrite. He was criticising someone as having child-like beliefs rather than counter-acting what the OP was saying and therefore Stevell is the one who was using an Ad-hom

[I_am_not_mafia]

But on the face of it the number of denominations and factions within denominations with in it, we see that Christianity isn't even unique unto itself.  Historically .. well that's where you could make a timeline to help visualize when each faction split off and perhaps not the reason.  If Christianity ever was unique, it sure didn't stay that way for long.

That's true. How can you talk about whether Xtianity is unique if no Xtian can agree on what is or isn't Xtian?

They'll talk about how many Xtians there are in the world when they want to make Argument ad Populum yet then say something like Mormons / Protestants / Catholics are not True Xtians.

[Amarok]

You latch on to some fringe theory that no competent scholar has ever supported and then throw it around like some novel truth that only 8 of you have.

Says the man who thinks the creator of the universe speaks to him

---

To bad what he said is true

---

We have documents that even secular scholars say are 99% that go all the way back to the first century in an unbroken chain..

Yeah those imaginary ones that don't exist

---

To combat the nonsense of the OP:

"Christians just doing what they always have been doing and that is taking other people's mythology and incorporating them into their own."

People should be embarrassed to repeat such nonsense since it is so easy to see through it. People who write such things have very obvious axes to grind and their efforts are not scholarly.

This is hilarious coming from an apologist hack like you

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure what the question is. I haven't read the article and so am relying on the earlier poster's representation of it, so there is that. But I can imagine what it likely says. Is Christianity unique? Yes. Of course it is. Even syncretisms are unique in the way they blend prior elements into a new whole. Is that to say that Christianity is "merely" a recombination of prior elements? I'm not entirely sure how the word 'merely' functions in that sentence. Even combinations of pre-existing elements can be original in their unique expression of those elements. Do I believe there are no original elements to Christianity? That I rather doubt. There are at least some things that are new, or, at least, renewed by their incorporation into Christianity. As expressed in a previous thread, I consider most movements and inventions to be more products of their times rather than the creators of them, and I imagine in that sense, Christianity is likewise more of an effect than a cause. To be explicit, I don't believe in the divine and that shapes the interpretations available to me. So was Christianity unique? Sure, as much as any prior movement, I suppose. Was Christianity strikingly original and a major influence on society? I rather doubt it. At worst, Christianity is just that movement which held the winning lottery ticket. Is Christianity unremarkable because of that? In some ways yes, in other ways, no. I have no doubt that there had to be "a Christianity" of some sort, and that this movement would be partly syncretic and partly original -- is that remarkable? Not in general, no. Was the unique entrance of Christianity into society and its effects upon it remarkable? Of course! So one can go either way. I suspect that people who ask such questions, whether the author of the article cited, or the originator of this thread, have specific, more or less rhetorical questions in mind. I don't see that we've succeeded in drilling down to a meaningful question, rhetorical or otherwise.

[Minimalist]

On one hand there is a claim that

"Christians just doing what they always have been doing and that is taking other people's mythology and incorporating them into their own."

On the other hand a Christian author of this article argues that it is not the case

https://probe.org/the-pagan-connection-d...religions/ 

What can you say about that except that the author is a xtard/idiot ?
-----

Thank you very much for your opinion

Well, were you careful enough to research that site you would have found their own "Doctrinal Statement."

https://probe.org/doctrinal-statement-2/

Which pretty much establishes by their own admission that they are a gang of xhristard/idiots.


You're welcome.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Comparative religion is a highly subjective endeavor. Viewed from 3000+ years removed, a modern perspective may see superficial similarities between ancient beliefs compared to how the various ancient cultures actually understood and practiced their religions. IMHO there are better places to engage in this kind of debate.

For example, it would be difficult to argue that Hellenistic philosophy did not influence Christian dogma during the Medieval period. A defender could suggest that the Scholastics clarified or uncovered doctrines already implicit in Scripture. An opponent could assert that Greek philosophy imported novel concepts into Christian belief. Both positions have points in their favor. I believe reasonable people can disagree.

My own opinion is that the character of Christian belief and practice did indeed change, but only by degrees and not in kind. In other words, different parts of Scripture were given greater scrutiny while others were de-emphasized, reflecting cultural-political circumstances and the intellectual environment. It makes sense that a marginalized and persecuted religious minority from the underclass would emphasize eschatology whereas a comfortably established theological hierarchy composed of university scholars would have time to speculate on the ontological status of angels.

[Minimalist]

Viewed from 3000+ years removed, a modern perspective may see superficial similarities between ancient beliefs

What about when ancient xtians report the same similarities?

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know.

Justin Martyr, c 160 AD  First Apology

Why don't you take him at his word.  After all, he was one of you.

[robvalue]

Even each of the 4 gospels is practically a new religion incorporating the previous ones.

[Amarok]

Viewed from 3000+ years removed, a modern perspective may see superficial similarities between ancient beliefs

What about when ancient xtians report the same similarities?

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know.

Justin Martyr, c 160 AD  First Apology

Why don't you take him at his word.  After all, he was one of you.

Because they are super selective about what Christians they will believe