Unique concepts of Christianity

[Confused]

I look at how Christianity has spread like wildfire since the time it became the "Official Religion" of Rome. Then I look at its scripture, its celebrations, its heritage and I have to wonder, what is so unique about it? Is there any portion of Christianity that is soley related to it alone? In other words, is there anything found within Christianity that doesn't have roots from an older religion? For example, the creation myth can also be found dating back to before the OT in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many Christian traditions are celebrated on dates not coinciding with dates of the bible or they coincide with a previous religions/beliefs such as the birth of Christ was celebrate on Jan 6 in early Christian dates (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm) as was the Alexandria God-man Aion, the death and resurrection of Christ dates coincide also with the Mithraites Attis death and resurrection. Rituals done for Christians have a history of being done in other religions as well:

Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did: Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.

This along with many other things leads me to search for anything in Christianity that may be considered unique to Christianity.

[arayhay]

.

try to put yourself in the Roman empire at this time and start a brand new religion and see what happens.

Why would I want to? If it is a compilation of previous concepts with new spins on them, is it really a brand new religion?

well so you can end up dead - not really - but that's what would / and did happen to anyone that tried to start a new religion inside the Roman empire.

seems kind of relevant to me, but then ... the Bible talks more about the time WE are in RIGHT NOW, and your interested in the fist century .

I agree, starting a new religion inside the Roman empire after it declared Christianity its state religion, would have been a death sentence. Starting Christianity before it was declared the state religion was equally as deadly. This is relevant to the thread how?
The bible talks of the time we are in right now? I would be interested in knowing why you consider such to be the case.

it's relevant because christianity started somewhere in the late first to early second century and it took another 200 years or so for it to be accepted. Iim saying that it was accepted because it was more palatable, and it was more palatable because it was acceptable. and it was acceptable because it WAS FAMILIAR

well God is OUTSIDE of time, but if you want to know what time it is He will let you know if you look at Israel. it's how we can look at His wrist watch sota speak.

and right know, more than any other time Israel is in parral to the enth degree.

and God talks about restoring Israel, bring them back from the four corners of the Earth. not destroying them. so hasatan MUST be involved in their plight.

[Confused]

it's relevant because christianity started somewhere in the late first to early second century and it took another 200 years or so for it to be accepted. Iim saying that it was accepted because it was more palatable, and it was more palatable because it was acceptable. and it was acceptable because it WAS FAMILIAR

well God is OUTSIDE of time, but if you want to know what time it is He will let you know if you look at Israel. it's how we can look at His wrist watch sota speak.

and right know, more than any other time Israel is in parral to the enth degree.

and God talks about restoring Israel, bring them back from the four corners of the Earth. not destroying them. so hasatan MUST be involved in their plight.

Ok, but how is anything you have written relevant to any unique concept of Christianity?

[Confused]

That was my whole point. It wasn't any attempt to say that Christianity stole all its beliefs from older religions etc.... It was simply an attempt to find anything that makes Christianity unique or more specific, any concepts that were unique to Christianity. Finally, someone gets it.

I’m starting to feel like we’re taking a step up from debating into cooperative/comparative thinking. These are, by far, my favorite moments on this site. I definitely agree that one has to get pretty specific to point out something that is unique to Christianity. While I believe that the emphasis on/centrality of a “free ride” to heaven is the religion’s distinguishing characteristic (a point that many Christians want to ignore completely), perhaps a specific combination of ideas would turn out to be the most uniquely Christian concept.

So what combinations would you say are the magic mixtures that make Christianity unique. Keep in mind, other religions/belief systems have used several of these combinations as well.

I might consider it a significant step for man, but not so much for mankind. Philosophically, it is a new train of thought that can be applied at a deeply insightful view, but the fact that it has been abused by extremists to justify doing harm to man rather than good because ones inner attitude leaves no room for seeing others attitudes makes it questionable that it is can be applied to all of man rather than at an individual level. (did that make sense, been awake too long).

No, unfortunately, I’m not sure I followed that last sentence. I believe that you were presenting the idea that basing one’s actions on an inner motivation can lead one to judgment as their motivations are not one’s own (let me know if this is too far off). My first thought is that (if this was, in fact, your statement) the Bible predicts this same danger.

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that this power is of God, and not of us.

My belief is that any realistic reading of this verse would lead one to believe (the obvious truth) that Christians are no better than anyone else. The philosophy of Christ, in my understanding, teaches that we cannot see the hearts of others; we don’t know their life stories or their intentions. Therefore, we cannot presume to judge whether they are “good” or “bad”. Also, we are far too biased to rate ourselves. This is not to mention that judging/hating others is completely unproductive. If one follows these teachings of Christ, then one would never become judgmental toward others.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the Church’s favorite teaching to ignore. I definitely agree that these ideas have to be accepted or rejected by each individual. I’m glad they’re out there, but we each must decide what to do with them.

A bit off here. My point was that I don't know that it is:

Jester wrote:

The question remains: “Is this really unique?” Not completely unique, that is for certain, though I’d say that the emphasis-shift from actions to one’s inner attitude as the means of salvation is basically original and definitely a significant step forward in human philosophy

a step forward for human philosophy. I think that for individual philosophy it may be a step forward (for man, not mankind). But if you apply it to more than the individual, then you must look at it in terms of the whole. In terms of the whole, it has been abused. In this regard, mans inner insights have led to misinterpretations that have led to extreme atrocities when you get a charismatic leader that convinces the majority to follow his lead. The mans insights were honest in his views. He may have thought what he was doing was God works for salvation. Radicalists do this all the time, recall 9/11. I fail to see the positive steps here.

[Jester]

The question remains: “Is this really unique?” Not completely unique, that is for certain, though I’d say that the emphasis-shift from actions to one’s inner attitude as the means of salvation is basically original and definitely a significant step forward in human philosophy

a step forward for human philosophy. I think that for individual philosophy it may be a step forward (for man, not mankind). But if you apply it to more than the individual, then you must look at it in terms of the whole. In terms of the whole, it has been abused. In this regard, mans inner insights have led to misinterpretations that have led to extreme atrocities when you get a charismatic leader that convinces the majority to follow his lead. The mans insights were honest in his views. He may have thought what he was doing was God works for salvation. Radicalists do this all the time, recall 9/11. I fail to see the positive steps here.

I can understand this, though I still think that it is a step forward for mankind for a couple of reasons. First, for those Christian groups who are not abusing it (I know its hard to believe based on what one sees on average, but there are quite a few of those types – generally speaking, the “abusers” tend to be the loudest people in any group).
Second, is the number of non-Christians who have come to see the importance of this idea. History tells us that the Christians of the first few centuries A.D. were much less corrupt than those of later times, and succeeded in establishing certain moral values in the Roman empire that we take for granted today (as I’ve started to learn of some of the changes, I’ve been amazed). As such, I believe that we are living in a more ethical society today because of this teaching of Christ regardless of whether or not the people we see every day are Christian.

[FinalEnigma]

I personally don't think it's a step forward. In my opinion, a man is the sum of his actions. to put it bluntly (i wouldnt use this phrase, but its the only one i can remember that applys, and i apologize for using it) when the 'shit hits the fan' its what a person does that matters, not who he is on the inside. you can sit there being as sinless/great/ethical as Jesus himself, but it doesnt mean a bloody thing unless you do something.

A man is the sum of his actions, not the sum of his internal ethics.

Now, admittedly a person actions are usually a reflectino of their internal ethics, but it's the actions that matter.

[Jester]

A man is the sum of his actions, not the sum of his internal ethics.

I suppose that is an endless discussion, though I do consider the concept of focus on the internal ethics to be less prone to a judgmental attitude.
Of course, I can't imagine how this point will end anywhere save that which you have allready pointed out: Actions and inner beliefs (true beliefs, as opposed to kidding one's self) are inseperable.

[Greatest I Am]

Hogwash.

A rich man can give all he wants to charity but if it is only a tax break then we cannot call it benevolence.
He may even resent having to do this. who knows.

The example here clearly shows that good action is not always well motivated.
Jesus said that to even think wrongly is to sin.

A poor man with nothing to give may have a better heart than the rich man. He gives nothing yet he is of better character.

Our thoughts is what we are, not what we do.

Regards
DL

[Confused]

The question remains: “Is this really unique?” Not completely unique, that is for certain, though I’d say that the emphasis-shift from actions to one’s inner attitude as the means of salvation is basically original and definitely a significant step forward in human philosophy

a step forward for human philosophy. I think that for individual philosophy it may be a step forward (for man, not mankind). But if you apply it to more than the individual, then you must look at it in terms of the whole. In terms of the whole, it has been abused. In this regard, mans inner insights have led to misinterpretations that have led to extreme atrocities when you get a charismatic leader that convinces the majority to follow his lead. The mans insights were honest in his views. He may have thought what he was doing was God works for salvation. Radicalists do this all the time, recall 9/11. I fail to see the positive steps here.

I can understand this, though I still think that it is a step forward for mankind for a couple of reasons. First, for those Christian groups who are not abusing it (I know its hard to believe based on what one sees on average, but there are quite a few of those types – generally speaking, the “abusers” tend to be the loudest people in any group).
Second, is the number of non-Christians who have come to see the importance of this idea. History tells us that the Christians of the first few centuries A.D. were much less corrupt than those of later times, and succeeded in establishing certain moral values in the Roman empire that we take for granted today (as I’ve started to learn of some of the changes, I’ve been amazed). As such, I believe that we are living in a more ethical society today because of this teaching of Christ regardless of whether or not the people we see every day are Christian.

Your belief of a more ethical society today based on the teachings of Christ is grounded in what proof?
A more ethical society? Perhaps you would care to share your insights into this in the thread I started about Where is God. The 20th century consisted of more vicious atrocities committed by man against man than any previous century. The 21st century has started off with a bang as well. I can see where you might see a more ethical society in terms of the individual societies, but in regards to mankind as a whole, I think th escalating violence of man negates this concept.

But back to OP: what combinations of beliefs do you propose would make Christianity unique?

[FinalEnigma]

Hogwash.

A rich man can give all he wants to charity but if it is only a tax break then we cannot call it benevolence.
He may even resent having to do this. who knows.

The example here clearly shows that good action is not always well motivated.
Jesus said that to even think wrongly is to sin.

A poor man with nothing to give may have a better heart than the rich man. He gives nothing yet he is of better character.

Our thoughts is what we are, not what we do.

Regards
DL

our thoughts may be relevent, indeed important, but they are not what we are. It is your actions that matter, not your thoughts. You can think anything you want to, but if you do not act on your thoughts, they have no impact.

Rich person A donates 5 million to charity. Poor person B donates nothing to charity, because he is too poor. Who has had a greater positive effect?

But to be more specific, and relevent...What i meant was, no matter what you think to yourself, or say to others(nobody(virtually) thinks they are evil) When it comes down to it, what matters is what you do about your thoughts, not what you think. If you make the wrong choice, all the correct thinking in the world doesn't matter.

Example.

A small boy runs into the street after a ball and a car is speeding toward him(the driver apparently doesn't see). Person A charges into the street, knocks the boy out of harms way, but gets hit instead and eventually dies. Person B sees the car speeding toward the boy, and does nothing. Which one is the better person?(assume this is not simultaneous, its 2 different boys and 2 different cars)
(this is even an indirect example, person B doesnt do anything wrong, he just does nothing.)

Another example.

Person A voulinteers for charity near where he lives, every weekend he goes out and spends 8 ours a day helping to feed the poor.
Person B does nothing for charity.
(assume this is the only difference between the two people)

Who is the better person?

[FinalEnigma]

Also, you can't say that the poor person has better character, he MIGHT, but doesnt necessarily. The other actions of his life, and the rich person's would determine which is the better person. You cant compare one person who is capable of something, and another who is not, and prove anything based on the fact that the one who can do it does, and the one who can't doesn't