Is Christianity unique or not?

[LastPoet]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Et moi, je suis un petit lapin!

[JairCrawford]

Frankly, Id like to know more about these "hundreds" of dying and rising savior gods. I have heard of Mithras as the proverbial elephant in the room but not much information about others.

And do try to remember that the earliest xtians did not deny the similarities but rather invented the absurd concept of Diabolical Mimicry as an excuse for why their godboy seemed so much like all the others.

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/diabolical-mimicry/

Conventional wisdom views Jesus Christ as being a novel and revolutionary person, whose message of love and kindness was rejected by the wicked Jews and Pagans, because they were evil and stupid. This is Christian propaganda of the worst kind, and absolutely untrue; the reason that many could not accept Jesus Christ, was because they saw him as an obvious copy of Pagan spiritual tradition. Those who argue against the historical Jesus point out that the Jesus Christ of the gospels didn’t say or do anything new – how could Jesus be the Word, Truth and Life, if his birth, death, resurrection, and every single detail of his earthly ministry was already recorded in earlier mythological traditions?

There is no question that these similarities exist, and were often pointed out to Christians of the first few centuries of the Church, because Christians were always defending themselves against them. In all of the collected literature of the early Church, however, the similarities between Jesus and other Pagan figures were never denied by Christians. Nor, as they are today, were they called accidents or coincidences. Instead, early Christians formulated the only possible explanation they could think of, an argument referred to as Diabolical Mimicry.

Diabolical Mimicry is a concept that is still alive and well within certain denominations of Christianity today. However it is seen as a strictly theological concept today (and I am not necessarily convinced that it was seen as anything else back then either).

As a person with somewhat Pentecostal beliefs myself, I notice the concept is used a lot in the more charismatic churches when other more cessationist denominations say things like "Look see! Here are some pagan religions today and they 'speak in tongues' too! howdaya explain that?" And the response is, "That is simply a Satanic counterfeit of what the Holy Spirit legitimately does!"

But you can see how this is purely a theological argument here. It has nothing to do with whether pagans engaged in glossolalia before Pentecostals or not. And from what I have read, the early Christian grumblings about Diabolical Mimicry seem similar. There don't seem to be any claims that say, Mithraism's mimicry pre-dated the Christian rituals (unless there is something specific that I have missed).

So I would say that it's perhaps a bit of a jump to insist that Diabolical Mimicry was a last gasp effort to make a rational argument about the similarities of Mithraism to their own faith when it could just as easily have been a reaction out of zeal because similar practices coexisted in the two religions for a time, and that was bothersome to them.

[Angrboda]

So I would say that it's perhaps a bit of a jump to insist that Diabolical Mimicry was a last gasp effort to make a rational argument about the similarities of Mithraism to their own faith when it could just as easily have been a reaction out of zeal because similar practices coexisted in the two religions for a time, and that was bothersome to them.

Huh?

[JairCrawford]

So I would say that it's perhaps a bit of a jump to insist that Diabolical Mimicry was a last gasp effort to make a rational argument about the similarities of Mithraism to their own faith when it could just as easily have been a reaction out of zeal because similar practices coexisted in the two religions for a time, and that was bothersome to them.

Huh?

I'm saying I don't see any reason to assume that the concept of Diabolical Mimicry was ever used as a defense against Mithraisms usage of the Eucharist predating theirs. That seems to be inferred by skeptics, but again, unless I'm missing something, it seems like a jump to assume.

[Minimalist]

So I would say that it's perhaps a bit of a jump to insist that Diabolical Mimicry was a last gasp effort to make a rational argument about the similarities of Mithraism to their own faith when it could just as easily have been a reaction out of zeal because similar practices coexisted in the two religions for a time, and that was bothersome to them.

Last gasp?  More like the first gasp, you mean.  Look, these were xtians who came up with that one.  You may find it embarrassing now but clearly they didn't.

[JairCrawford]

So I would say that it's perhaps a bit of a jump to insist that Diabolical Mimicry was a last gasp effort to make a rational argument about the similarities of Mithraism to their own faith when it could just as easily have been a reaction out of zeal because similar practices coexisted in the two religions for a time, and that was bothersome to them.

Last gasp?  More like the first gasp, you mean.  Look, these were xtians who came up with that one.  You may find it embarrassing now but clearly they didn't.

It doesn't surprise me nor is it embarrassing because Christians still use that argument today, myself included, for current theological issues. lol

I am talking about a specific implication, namely that 'because these early Christians resorted to such desperate tactics as this, it must mean that it was the Christians who copied Mithraism's earlier practices'.

^ I am saying that to assert that assumption, is a jump.

[Minimalist]

Um, Mithras is not a major factor in the First Apology.  I think it gets mentioned once near the end.

No, instead we get this:

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

He goes on to yammer about Jupiter and Bellerophon and Pegasus and Perseus and Aesculapius...  He also gets in a couple of shots at Marcion for good measure.

BTW, the church was notoriously unsuccessful in suppressing Marcionism.  It continued for centuries in the East and there are Islamic records from the so-called Golden Age indicating that it was still in existence.  Scholars argue about the Golden Age but anywhere between the 8th and 14th centuries seems to fill the bill.

[JairCrawford]

Um, Mithras is not a major factor in the First Apology.  I think it gets mentioned once near the end.

No, instead we get this:

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets.

He goes on to yammer about Jupiter and Bellerophon and Pegasus and Perseus and Aesculapius...  He also gets in a couple of shots at Marcion for good measure.

BTW, the church was notoriously unsuccessful in suppressing Marcionism.  It continued for centuries in the East and there are Islamic records from the so-called Golden Age indicating that it was still in existence.  Scholars argue about the Golden Age but anywhere between the 8th and 14th centuries seems to fill the bill.

That's interesting! I'm reading through the entire First Apology now, and it is very interesring.

[Minimalist]

You know what amuses me almost more than anything, Jair?  The fact that apologetics has changed so little since antiquity.  Justin and Tertullian and Epiphanius, et al, use the same kind of "reasoning" as modern apologists.  Basically...." we know what they said but this is the truth because "god" said so."  If anything, there is a little more invective in ancient apologetics but I suppose those were rougher times.