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.

[bernee51]

OK, you've noted alleged similarities. I'm asking to see the textural evidence for this. I'm asking for the direct quotes from Hindu scripture in context. I want to compare them for myself, not take Kersey Graves word for it just because he says so.

Sounds fair enough..I'll see what i can dig up for you. I don't have Graves book but I do have copies of the Bhagvad Gita and other texts.

I'm also asking for dating on the scriptures and extant manuscripts as well. There are multiple publications on this borrowing and copy-cat issue. Here's a couple.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html

I am aware of these apologist sites...their vested interest in maintianing the integrity of their 'hero' is also noted. It is also noted that neither of these sites (did you actually read them?) go near to addressing the similarites raised by Graves.

There may very well be common themes. But, common religious themes is not evidence of borrowing or copy-catting necessarily.

But it certainly could have been influenced, could it not?

If there are such stark similarities to implicate Christianity as having borrowed from other religions everything in it's belief and practices,

No one is claiming EVERYTHING in christianity is 'borrowed', much however is demonstrably based upon older philosophies. Buddhist missionaries travelled as far west as Greece during Asoka's reign. The buddhist influence on the development of christian philosophy is no doubt due to that interaction.

[Confused]

How about:

[Goose]

This is a late response but I've been away for a few days.

Goose:
Epic of Gilgamesh (which mimics Genesis) is currently estimated to be from approx 2500-1300 BC. With Gilgamesh being the king of Uruk in 2700 B.C., the first clay tablets about King Gilgamesh appear ~ 2000 B.C., but the earliest full writing currently have is dated at ~1300 B. C. To give you a perspective, the Code of Hammurabi wasn't written until 1800 B.C. Almost 1000 years after Gilgamesh ruled. And the OT earliest writings don't exist until 1000-300 B.C.

You've not provided any textural evidence to comment upon, so I do not feel obliged to provide any either at this point.

Regarding Giglamesh: The flood account is estimated to have been edited and added between 1300-1000 BC. Your dating of the OT is very liberal at 1000-300BC. Conservative dating would place that portion of the OT written around 1400BC (with oral traditions going back much farther) predating the version of Gilgamesh you have mentioned. We have a situation with three possible answers - 1) Gilgamesh borrowed from Genesis 2) Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh 3) Both are taking from another source and possibly reporting different accounts of an event that may have actually happened. For the sake of argument over dating, if we assume option three, the Genesis account has a more historical and logical feel compared to the Gilgamsh epic (whether or not you believe it, is another matter). The general rule of thumb in ancient literature is history usually takes on a mythical account over time. Myth does not generally take on a logical and historical tone in reports over time. Therefore, the Genesis account would seem to be taken from an older and more historical source.

The Code of Hammurambi: You could make a case that there are similar principles to Mosaic Law, such as not bearing false witness, eye for an eye. But, there are also vast differences. Apparently it was the "in thing" to compose a legal code in the Ancient Near East. Are the similarities between codes cultural influence, revelations from God, evidence of objective morality, or a combination? Are any apparent similarities close enough to prove borrowing by Moses?

Composition of the Rig Veda, oldest of the four Vedas, dates to approx 1500/1200 B.C. The Bhagavad-Gita with God Krishna dates to 1st centrury B.C.

I think you'll find dating texts from ancient India difficult at best. Maybe you can quote me some Rig Veda scripture that shows Christianity borrowed it's doctrine or practices. The Merriam-Websters Encyc. of Religions places the Bhagavad-Gita in the first or second Century AD. as a late addition. Maybe it borrowed from Christianity?
http://www.religion-encyclopedia.com/B/ ... d_gita.htm

I think any noted scholar would consider The Norton Anthology: World Masterpieces The expanded edition Volume 1 to be quite reliable and valid. The literature included in each of these confirms what has already been posted about the "Savior" concept, as well as Genesis.

I don't have a Norton Anth: WM Volume 1. So if you'd be kind enough to provide the textural evidence in context that supports these claims, or a link, then I can comment. I'm asking for textural evidence, not another person's opinion based upon what they think it means or what they think might have happened. I want to make my own evaluation. That's fair is it not?

How about:

youtube, Brian Flemming's doctored misquotes of the mid-second century apologist Justin Martyr, and Robert Price's opinion is not my idea of research. Maybe it's sufficient for you, but not for me. Flemming has a doctored quote from Martyr and takes the other out of context, can you find the actual quote from Martyr which is doctored-up? Here's a hint, it's in a Dialogue With Trypho.

I will agree with Flemming's portrayal of many Christian's being unaware of the alleged similarities between Christianity and pagan religions. I'll add though, that many skeptics that buy into these claims whole-heartedly are equally unaware of the gross lack of evidence to support these same claims. Especially, the claims revolving around Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and death for the sins of mankind.

How about: we see some real evidence in context in this thread. This is my third request for textural evidence to support these claims. Then we can get into addressing the evidence if you'd like.

[Goose]

OK, you've noted alleged similarities. I'm asking to see the textural evidence for this. I'm asking for the direct quotes from Hindu scripture in context. I want to compare them for myself, not take Kersey Graves word for it just because he says so.

Sounds fair enough..I'll see what i can dig up for you. I don't have Graves book but I do have copies of the Bhagvad Gita and other texts.

I've been away for a week, but noticed no response. Please provide the Hindu scripture with reference and context that substantiate Graves' claims in your previous post.

Goose wrote:

I'm also asking for dating on the scriptures and extant manuscripts as well. There are multiple publications on this borrowing and copy-cat issue. Here's a couple.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html

I am aware of these apologist sites...their vested interest in maintianing the integrity of their 'hero' is also noted. It is also noted that neither of these sites (did you actually read them?) go near to addressing the similarites raised by Graves.

I guess you're saying they are biased. But sources such as Kersey Graves, Freke and Gandy, Acharya S are completely with out bias, is that it? I guess you also figure that quoting a 19th C. source like Graves is worthy of debunking in the 21st C. And yes I have read the sites I gave you. You, obviously did not. Graves is slammed by a skeptic for questionable scholarship in a link in the middle of one of the articles.
Skeptic Stephen Van Eck said:

Skeptics sometimes cite Kersey Graves in Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Godfrey Higgins' Anacalypsis (which Graves drew from) in asserting that Krishna was a crucified deity. No such event occurred in the Gita or in any recognized Hindu scripture. Given the pronounced syncretic tendency of Hinduism, it is safe to assume that any odd tales of Krishna's being crucified arose only after the existence of Christian proselytism, in imitation of the Christian narrative. It is neither authentic to Hinduism nor is Hinduism the source of that portion of the Christian narrative. The same may be said for most of the purported nativity stories. In my opinion, both Higgins and Graves are highly unreliable sources and should be ignored.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html

In a link (provided by religioustolerance.com) to amazon.com for Graves's book, a reader of the book makes note of the following admissions of the author. I don't have the book either, so I'll take this with a grain of salt until it can be confirmed.

Pg 133 Footnote "The author desires it to be understood with respect to the cases of crucifixion here briefly narrated, that they are not vouched for as actual occurrences, of which there is much ground to doubt. It has neither been his aim or desire to prove them to be real historical events, nor to establish any certain number of cases. Indeed he deems it unimportant to know, if it could be determined, whether they are fact or fiction, or wether one God was crucified, or many".

Pg299 Footnote "The author deems it proper to state here, with respect to the comparison between Christ and Chrishna, that some of the doctrines which he has selected as constituting a part of the religion of the Hindu saviour are not found in the reported teachings of that deified moralist."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN= ... onsultanA/

But, despite this, I guess Graves deserves our utmost attention, huh?

Goose wrote:

There may very well be common themes. But, common religious themes is not evidence of borrowing or copy-catting necessarily.

But it certainly could have been influenced, could it not?

That depends upon what you mean by "influenced." I gather you mean that Christianity is nothing more than a hodge-podge of borrowed pagan beliefs and practices. If that's what you mean, then the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate these claims with evidence. I've seen very little so far, if any at all.

If you mean common religious beliefs such as a concept of God, gods, an afterlife, god-men, etc. That is not evidence of "influence" or borrowing necessarily. These are themes in many religions. Indeed, they are what makes a religion, a religion. The reality that different cultures have come to these conclusions could just as easily be interpreted as tacit evidence that things exist beyond what natural laws can tell us.

Goose wrote:

If there are such stark similarities to implicate Christianity as having borrowed from other religions everything in it's belief and practices,

No one is claiming EVERYTHING in christianity is 'borrowed',

Read the OP. It seems to be subtly implied:

...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?...

much however is demonstrably based upon older philosophies.

If it's so incredibly easy to "demonstrate," let's see the textural evidence. It should be blatantly obvious, a piece of cake.

Buddhist missionaries travelled as far west as Greece during Asoka's reign. The buddhist influence on the development of christian philosophy is no doubt due to that interaction.

No doubt, huh? You're expecting me to believe that a band of Buddhist monks wondering the country side in Geece influenced staunch monotheistic Jews to create a new religion that would place them in the face of persecution and possibly even death? Too bad neither Jesus nor His disciples gave any credit to Buddha to support your theory, huh? Buddha must be ticked.

[Confused]

This is a late response but I've been away for a few days.

Confused wrote:
Goose:
Epic of Gilgamesh (which mimics Genesis) is currently estimated to be from approx 2500-1300 BC. With Gilgamesh being the king of Uruk in 2700 B.C., the first clay tablets about King Gilgamesh appear ~ 2000 B.C., but the earliest full writing currently have is dated at ~1300 B. C. To give you a perspective, the Code of Hammurabi wasn't written until 1800 B.C. Almost 1000 years after Gilgamesh ruled. And the OT earliest writings don't exist until 1000-300 B.C.


You've not provided any textural evidence to comment upon, so I do not feel obliged to provide any either at this point.

Regarding Giglamesh: The flood account is estimated to have been edited and added between 1300-1000 BC. Your dating of the OT is very liberal at 1000-300BC. Conservative dating would place that portion of the OT written around 1400BC (with oral traditions going back much farther) predating the version of Gilgamesh you have mentioned. We have a situation with three possible answers - 1) Gilgamesh borrowed from Genesis 2) Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh 3) Both are taking from another source and possibly reporting different accounts of an event that may have actually happened. For the sake of argument over dating, if we assume option three, the Genesis account has a more historical and logical feel compared to the Gilgamsh epic (whether or not you believe it, is another matter). The general rule of thumb in ancient literature is history usually takes on a mythical account over time. Myth does not generally take on a logical and historical tone in reports over time. Therefore, the Genesis account would seem to be taken from an older and more historical source.

The Code of Hammurambi: You could make a case that there are similar principles to Mosaic Law, such as not bearing false witness, eye for an eye. But, there are also vast differences. Apparently it was the "in thing" to compose a legal code in the Ancient Near East. Are the similarities between codes cultural influence, revelations from God, evidence of objective morality, or a combination? Are any apparent similarities close enough to prove borrowing by Moses?

Confused wrote:
Composition of the Rig Veda, oldest of the four Vedas, dates to approx 1500/1200 B.C. The Bhagavad-Gita with God Krishna dates to 1st centrury B.C.
I think you'll find dating texts from ancient India difficult at best. Maybe you can quote me some Rig Veda scripture that shows Christianity borrowed it's doctrine or practices. The Merriam-Websters Encyc. of Religions places the Bhagavad-Gita in the first or second Century AD. as a late addition. Maybe it borrowed from Christianity?
http://www.religion-encyclopedia.com/B/ ... d_gita.htm

Confused wrote:
I think any noted scholar would consider The Norton Anthology: World Masterpieces The expanded edition Volume 1 to be quite reliable and valid. The literature included in each of these confirms what has already been posted about the "Savior" concept, as well as Genesis.

I don't have a Norton Anth: WM Volume 1. So if you'd be kind enough to provide the textural evidence in context that supports these claims, or a link, then I can comment. I'm asking for textural evidence, not another person's opinion based upon what they think it means or what they think might have happened. I want to make my own evaluation. That's fair is it not?

You realize that none of what you have written in any way negates carbon dating. The Norton Anthology highlighted points online are at:
http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/englis ... erview.htm

In regards to the remaining nonsense here, I have given multiple sites as have Bernee. If you wish to provide your "evidence" on your opinion about the datings of the writings, by all means, show them. Otherwise you are passing the buck saying my evidence is good enough for you so you can choose to ignore it until I show you 1000 sites at which point you will still ignore it.

What isn't fair is your constant quotes of "no evidence being provided in the form of texts. That is so erroneous it isn't even funny.

How about: we see some real evidence in context in this thread. This is my third request for textural evidence to support these claims. Then we can get into addressing the evidence if you'd like.

The evidence has been given. You are opting to ignore it saying it isn't textual. That is wrong. Allow some enlightenment:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm

Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed by four or five writers between 1000 to 400 BCE based on much older traditions. The New Testament was composed by a variety of writers between 60 to 110 CE. The contents of the New Testament were formalized by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE, and finally canonized in 382 CE.

Feel free to continue to read about it at the site above.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/index.htm

This, the earliest known written legal code, was composed about 1780 B.C.E. by Hammurabi, the ruler of Bablyon. This text was excavated in 1901; it was carved on an eight foot high stone monolith. The harsh system of punishment expressed in this text prefigures the concept of 'an eye for an eye'. The Code lays out the basis of both criminal and civil law, and defines procedures for commerce and trade. This text was redacted for 1,500 years, and is considered the predecessor of Jewish and Islamic legal systems alike.

At the other end of the evolution of Ancient Near Eastern law is the refined and considerably more merciful Talmud, composed two and half millenia later, also in Babylon, by expatriate Jewish scholars.

Feel free to read more into it at the site above.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm

The Vedas
There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda. The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally comitted to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.
The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead, the Enuma Elish, the I Ching, and the Avesta, they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago. The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics

Once again, do your comparison at the site above.


http://www.utexas.edu/courses/clubmed/gilgamsh.html

The Epic of Gilgamesh
Study Guide



The Epic of Gilgamesh is a Sumerian epic poem that dates back to the 3rd millenium B.C. and is the first piece of written literature in the world. It was enormously popular in ancient Mesopotamia over centuries and knowledge of it extended beyond to western Asia and very possibly to the Greek world (suggested by some similarities to Achilles in the Iliad and to Greek flood stories). The poem in the form you are reading it is actually a composite of a number of Gilgamesh stories from clay tablets found at a a variety of sites in Mesopotamia (see the Introduction in the Penguin).

In the story, Gilgamesh is presented as part god, part man, that is a legendary king from the distant past. But we know of a historical Gilgamesh of Uruk (from the Sumerian King List), who reigned ca. 2700 B.C. and it may be that legendary material was "grafted" onto this king. The poem contains both fictional aspects characteristic of heroic epic, but also reflects historical aspects. Since it was so popular, it is valuable to the historian of Mesopotamian culture because it reveals much about the conceptual and religious world, e.g., attitudes toward the gods, how a hero was defined and regarded, views about death, and friendship. It can also tell us something about political and social organization in a Mesopotamian city like Uruk, as well as its physical layout. For example, the prologue (p. 61) reveals that Uruk was a developed city to the extent of having fortification walls (note that it specifies the building material) and temples, that it was a polytheistic (many gods) society from the number of gods named. Page 62 makes it clear that Gilgamesh was ruler, that is, that there was a king of some sort, and it reveals something about the organization of society (it speaks of warriors, and nobles). These are the sorts of things that you should be trying to pick out as you read.

[bernee51]

I've been away for a week, but noticed no response. Please provide the Hindu scripture with reference and context that substantiate Graves' claims in your previous post.

When waiting is full

I guess you're saying they are biased. But sources such as Kersey Graves, Freke and Gandy, Acharya S are completely with out bias, is that it? I guess you also figure that quoting a 19th C. source like Graves is worthy of debunking in the 21st C. And yes I have read the sites I gave you. You, obviously did not. Graves is slammed by a skeptic for questionable scholarship in a link in the middle of one of the articles.

I too have read the commentaries you mention. To say everything is valid or not valid is as inappropriate to those sources as it is to any other. Whether it is christian apologist or a supporter of the cultural basis (as opposed to theistic) of religion, neather have the whole truth. To claim one either is or is not is to set up a false dicochotomy. There are demonstrably similarities between all belief systems. To deny that is to deny the golden rule.

No doubt, huh? You're expecting me to believe that a band of Buddhist monks wondering the country side in Geece influenced staunch monotheistic Jews to create a new religion that would place them in the face of persecution and possibly even death? Too bad neither Jesus nor His disciples gave any credit to Buddha to support your theory, huh? Buddha must be ticked.

Not at all. The development of religion is an evolution on the development of consciousness within our species. Relgious belief has clearly changed over tiime...it has evolved. Buddhist monks would not have been there to convert anyone...it is not a religion/philosphy of conversion...they would have just cited ancient teraditions and quoted the buddha. Some sunk in.

Some even may have ended up as part of the christian lexicon. Buddha and Christ had a lot in common. Here are some...with textural references.

[katiej49]

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.

where did you get this information from and how do you know the source to be reliable (i'm speaking of your comparing Christianity and Mithraism)

the difference between Christianity and any other religion......is grace. This is the only one that dares to claim we cant reach God by our works, but that He has reached down to us by His work on the cross. blessings

[Cogitoergosum]

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.

where did you get this information from and how do you know the source to be reliable (i'm speaking of your comparing Christianity and Mithraism)

the difference between Christianity and any other religion......is grace. This is the only one that dares to claim we cant reach God by our works, but that He has reached down to us by His work on the cross. blessings

Yes christian apologetics had to look hard for a difference with other religions. And finally they cam out with the GRACE BS.
For your infoin mythology a big number of gods have reached down and helped humans.

[Easyrider]

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.

Ronald Nash, the author of The Gospel and the Greeks, describes Mithraism in the following way:

We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

Nash continues,


Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages ... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook ... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians.

Perhaps the most important argument against an early Christian dependence on Mithraism is the fact that the timing is all wrong. The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.

In fact, all the allegations of Christian dependence on various mystery religions or Gnostic movements have been rejected by scholars in the fields of biblical and classical studies. The reasons for such a rejection are mainly due to the historical character of Christianity and the early date of the New Testament documents that would not have allowed enough time for mythological developments on one hand, and on the other hand, the complete lack of any early historical evidence in support of the mystery religions. As the British scholar Sir Norman Anderson explains,

The basic difference between Christianity and the mysteries is the historic basis of the one and the mythological character of the others. The deities of the mysteries were no more than "nebulous figures of an imaginary past," while the Christ whom the apostolic kerygma proclaimed had lived and died only a few years before the first New Testament documents were written. Even when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians the majority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were still alive.

answeringislam.org.uk

In short, specific "simularities" to Christ such as are commonly argued are not seen in history before the life and death of Christ. Which means after the resurrection of Christ people began blending them together.

Confused - as for Gilgamesh, it's entirely possible that they got the basic flood account handed down to them from the descendents of Noah.

[Confused]

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.

Ronald Nash, the author of The Gospel and the Greeks, describes Mithraism in the following way:

We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

Nash continues,


Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth - at least during its early stages ... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook ... Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians.

Perhaps the most important argument against an early Christian dependence on Mithraism is the fact that the timing is all wrong. The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, too late for it to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.

In fact, all the allegations of Christian dependence on various mystery religions or Gnostic movements have been rejected by scholars in the fields of biblical and classical studies. The reasons for such a rejection are mainly due to the historical character of Christianity and the early date of the New Testament documents that would not have allowed enough time for mythological developments on one hand, and on the other hand, the complete lack of any early historical evidence in support of the mystery religions. As the British scholar Sir Norman Anderson explains,

The basic difference between Christianity and the mysteries is the historic basis of the one and the mythological character of the others. The deities of the mysteries were no more than "nebulous figures of an imaginary past," while the Christ whom the apostolic kerygma proclaimed had lived and died only a few years before the first New Testament documents were written. Even when the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians the majority of some five hundred witnesses to the resurrection were still alive.

answeringislam.org.uk

In short, specific "simularities" to Christ such as are commonly argued are not seen in history before the life and death of Christ. Which means after the resurrection of Christ people began blending them together.

Confused - as for Gilgamesh, it's entirely possible that they got the basic flood account handed down to them from the descendents of Noah.

Since most of this post is irrelevant, I will address only what you directed at me. If the Gilgamesh account was passed down by generations and was actually about Noah, then I really must question the validity of anything in the bible. How one can confuse Gilgamesh (with his male "lover" mind you) with Noah is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that though it mimics Genesis, the methods for creating Genesis have enough differences to make me question it being even remotely related to the OT. Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?