What is uniquely Christian?

[Jew]

If you want to talk about symbols, I believe the crucifix is unique to Christianity. Crosses similar to the Christian cross have been used by other religions at various times, but never crucifixes. I believe crucifixes didn't come into vogue until the 7th century, though, so I don't know if that really counts.

[NecronLord]

*growl* Think again.

Judaism is big against adultery, and fairly strongly against premarital sex (as far as Orthodox Judaism goes, at least); between a husband and wife, however, sex is a beautiful thing and a mitzvah. That's right, if you bang your spouse you're making God happy.

So, it's the root of sex=shame, Christians just expanded it to include sex in marriage?

[Ariphaos]

If you want to talk about symbols, I believe the crucifix is unique to Christianity. Crosses similar to the Christian cross have been used by other religions at various times, but never crucifixes. I believe crucifixes didn't come into vogue until the 7th century, though, so I don't know if that really counts.

The Crucifix - Sword of Mithras connection is one of the strongest symbological connections between Mithraism and Christianity. That, and the cross's relation to the Egyptian Ankh is unmistakable (replacing the feminine top with another masculine end... )

[PrinceofLowLight]

On a more doctrinal note, I'm not sure if the specific edict of "Love your enemies", as opposed to just being good to people and treating them how you would like to be treated, exists anywhere else.

[DPDarkPrimus]

On a more doctrinal note, I'm not sure if the specific edict of "Love your enemies", as opposed to just being good to people and treating them how you would like to be treated, exists anywhere else.

That's mere semantics- if you're supposed to be treating people like you want to be treated, then you'll be good to your enemies already.

[chaoschristian]

Simple enough question: what aspects of the Christian mythos, if any, are unique to it, as opposed to being copied from other religions that were pre-existing or concurrently developing at the time?

Mike, a question if I may: do you want us to stay strictly within the bounds of Christianity's first several decades or first few centuries? Is your examination focused on the seminal development of Christianity or is the whole history of the religion in play here?

[wolveraptor]

If you want to talk about symbols, I believe the crucifix is unique to Christianity. Crosses similar to the Christian cross have been used by other religions at various times, but never crucifixes. I believe crucifixes didn't come into vogue until the 7th century, though, so I don't know if that really counts.

Well, the cross itself is a Roman torture technique, so it isn't as if Christians came up with the symbol all on their own anyways. Not to mention parrallels such as the ankh (sp?).

[Rye]

I thought that the "You must be born again/washed in the Blood/take Christ into your heart" came from Mithraism and the sacrifice of the bull and rituals associated with the use of its blood...

The Christian idea of salvation through the blood of Jesus comes from Judaism: blood as an atonement for sins is a central component of Judaism. Other religious sects at the time practiced animal sacrifices as well, but I recall those being more as offerings to appease gods, not as offerings to atone for sins as in the Jewish tradition.

Of course, God also said loads of times that human sacrifice was unacceptable, and poor people could make non blood sacrifices, and shit.

Also, Paul sacrifices some birds in Acts somewhere, so the idea of a human sacrifice ending all sacrifices wasn't an otion that came about till later, AFAIK, when animal sacrifice became archaic.

To answer the thread's purpose, I don't know of any other religions that preached "love your enemies" but that may just be my own ignorance.

[EmperorSolo51]

And let's not forget Jesus' wonderful pacifism of: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

I'm fairly certain that doesn't mean that Jesus is asking people to go kick some heathen ass, but that people must follow him even though it will divide and cause conflict. The Gospels do have some strongly pacifistic stuff, although that's not really evident elsewhere in the Bible.

Anyway, I can't really think of anything that's terribly unique to Christianity. Maybe excommunication.

The Quote is actually a foreshadowing of Jesus's conflict between himself and the Pharisees and the later split between the Early christians and Jews after the death of Jesus.

[Sean Gray]

Had the concept of God himself dying and suffering for the sins of mankind been used before Christianity?

[Molyneux]

*growl* Think again.

Judaism is big against adultery, and fairly strongly against premarital sex (as far as Orthodox Judaism goes, at least); between a husband and wife, however, sex is a beautiful thing and a mitzvah. That's right, if you bang your spouse you're making God happy.

So, it's the root of sex=shame, Christians just expanded it to include sex in marriage?

Not really, unless it's pretty badly misinterpreted.

Sex is a good thing, but it's not supposed to be small potatoes; according to Jewish tradition, casual sex (without an emotional attachment) is misusing it. The more liberal forms of Judaism may not require marriage for sex to be a good thing, just an emotional bond.

Pretty much the basis of the Jewish views on sex is that it's supposed to be a spiritual and mental, as well as a physical, coupling.

[NecronLord]

So what's with all the endless laws on 'you're ritually unclean if you have a nocturnal emission' and so on in Leviticus? Oh and 'homosexuality is an abomination' etc etc. Bear in mind we're talking about pre-Roman Judaism here.

[Ariphaos]

Had the concept of God himself dying and suffering for the sins of mankind been used before Christianity?

Yes. The Godman myths were particularly common, including another one who was born in Bethlehem.

[Xenophobe3691]

So what's with all the endless laws on 'you're ritually unclean if you have a nocturnal emission' and so on in Leviticus? Oh and 'homosexuality is an abomination' etc etc. Bear in mind we're talking about pre-Roman Judaism here.

You forget the "You're ritually unclean when you're menstruating."

But still, even back then, sex in marriage wasn't dirty, unclean, or anything but proper fun.

[wolveraptor]

The Quote is actually a foreshadowing of Jesus's conflict between himself and the Pharisees and the later split between the Early christians and Jews after the death of Jesus.

The only way that would make sense would be if Jesus or his followers actually fought the Pharisees or the Jews with...swords and stuff. Otherwise, he wouldn't describe it as "bringing the sword."

[LadyTevar]

If you want to talk about symbols, I believe the crucifix is unique to Christianity. Crosses similar to the Christian cross have been used by other religions at various times, but never crucifixes. I believe crucifixes didn't come into vogue until the 7th century, though, so I don't know if that really counts.

Well, the cross itself is a Roman torture technique, so it isn't as if Christians came up with the symbol all on their own anyways. Not to mention parrallels such as the ankh (sp?).

The cross itself wasn't used as a Chrisitan symbol until later. The earliest symbol used was the Fish (yes, that fish on everyone's bumpersticker. It made a comeback).

[Molyneux]

If you want to talk about symbols, I believe the crucifix is unique to Christianity. Crosses similar to the Christian cross have been used by other religions at various times, but never crucifixes. I believe crucifixes didn't come into vogue until the 7th century, though, so I don't know if that really counts.

Well, the cross itself is a Roman torture technique, so it isn't as if Christians came up with the symbol all on their own anyways. Not to mention parrallels such as the ankh (sp?).

The cross itself wasn't used as a Chrisitan symbol until later. The earliest symbol used was the Fish (yes, that fish on everyone's bumpersticker. It made a comeback).

Me, I prefer the Darwin fish...or the gefilte fish. Mmm...gefilte.

The Christian fixation on the cross never made much sense to me.
To paraphrase Loserz: If you'd been nailed to one of those things and left hanging there to die, would you EVER want to see another one ever again?

[LadyTevar]

Well, the cross itself is a Roman torture technique, so it isn't as if Christians came up with the symbol all on their own anyways. Not to mention parrallels such as the ankh (sp?).

The cross itself wasn't used as a Chrisitan symbol until later. The earliest symbol used was the Fish (yes, that fish on everyone's bumpersticker. It made a comeback).

Me, I prefer the Darwin fish...or the gefilte fish. Mmm...gefilte.

The Christian fixation on the cross never made much sense to me.
To paraphrase Loserz: If you'd been nailed to one of those things and left hanging there to die, would you EVER want to see another one ever again?

:chokes on drink:
Dammit, don't do that to me when I'm drinking! It's bad enough when I suddenly break into loud laughter at work.

Anyway, the story I heard for the change was Constantine's vision of the Cross and conversion to Christianity. No clue what the truth of the matter is.

[Sean Gray]

The Quote is actually a foreshadowing of Jesus's conflict between himself and the Pharisees and the later split between the Early christians and Jews after the death of Jesus.

The only way that would make sense would be if Jesus or his followers actually fought the Pharisees or the Jews with...swords and stuff. Otherwise, he wouldn't describe it as "bringing the sword."

Jesus isn't allowed to used metaphor?

Yes. The Godman myths were particularly common, including another one who was born in Bethlehem.

I'm not questioning whether God becoming man had been used before. The answer to that is an obvious yes. I was asking about God, the most powerful being in the universe, allowing Himself to beaten, humiliated, and executed. Had that been done?

[General Zod]

I'm not questioning whether God becoming man had been used before. The answer to that is an obvious yes. I was asking about God, the most powerful being in the universe, allowing Himself to beaten, humiliated, and executed. Had that been done?

The closest parallels that come to mind are Buddhist myth. Buddhist myth where a prince in a position of great luxury and wealth allows himself to go through considerable amounts of suffering, torture and pain (alot more than Jesus ever went through), for the sake of achieving enlightenment so he can help end suffering on earth. Not entirely the same, but it's the closest one I can think of offfhand.

[EmperorSolo51]

The cross itself wasn't used as a Chrisitan symbol until later. The earliest symbol used was the Fish (yes, that fish on everyone's bumpersticker. It made a comeback).

Me, I prefer the Darwin fish...or the gefilte fish. Mmm...gefilte.

The Christian fixation on the cross never made much sense to me.
To paraphrase Loserz: If you'd been nailed to one of those things and left hanging there to die, would you EVER want to see another one ever again?[/quote]

Well if you go back to the Gospel of St, Matthew and the Gospel of St. Mark, Jesuys tells us directly that if we want to follow him, we must take up the cross. This is a forshadowing of Christ's eventual death during His passion on his way to Calvary. What Christ is saying that we also must bear his passion and take up the very symbol of his sacrifice for the redemption of all of manking for the sin of Adam and so that the gates of Heaven wouyld be open for all.

[Jew]

The Christian fixation on the cross never made much sense to me.
To paraphrase Loserz: If you'd been nailed to one of those things and left hanging there to die, would you EVER want to see another one ever again?

If you understand Christian theology then it makes a lot of sense. The cross is a symbol of God's love for us. He loved us so much that he became a man, willingly gave himself up to be beaten, tortured, and crucified in order that he might save men from their sins. The cross is a potent symbol of how incredibly much Jesus loved mankind.

It isn't a symbol of defeat. Christ's death on the cross was not a "loss" for God or a "win" for Satan. It was the moment of triumph, the moment where Jesus Christ willingly chose to die as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

Once you understand that Christ's death on the cross is the sacrifice that pays for mankind's sins, it is pretty easy to understand why Christians would want to celebrate the event. After all, it was the event that provided a way for men's sins to be forgiven. It's the single most important event in history. (Well, you could make a case for Creation being more important, but let's not bicker about details.)

[Darth Wong]

Then why did he ask God why he had forsaken him?

[Jew]

Then why did he ask God why he had forsaken him?

That was part of the whole "choosing to die for the sins of mankind" thing. Jesus Christ himself was sinless, but in order to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind he took mankind's sins upon himself. He allowed himself to die. God looked away, rejecting Christ in the sense that Christ had to die to pay for the sins of mankind. God rejected him and let him die as a sacrifice for mankind. Of course this was anguishing for Christ: to be cut off and left to die, even though it was something he chose willingly, is an awful fate. Christ's words do not indicate that he thinks God has failed him, or that God has lost, but they are a cry born out of the pain he suffers when he feels the full wrath of God meted out upon him as a punishment for the sins of mankind.

In any event, the cross must be a victory for Christians because of Christ's resurrection on the third day. If Christ had not been raised up from the dead, then the cross would indeed have been a defeat.

This is basic Christian theology.

[Darth Wong]

Then why did he ask God why he had forsaken him?

That was part of the whole "choosing to die for the sins of mankind" thing. Jesus Christ himself was sinless, but in order to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind he took mankind's sins upon himself. He allowed himself to die. God looked away, rejecting Christ in the sense that Christ had to die to pay for the sins of mankind. God rejected him and let him die as a sacrifice for mankind. Of course this was anguishing for Christ: to be cut off and left to die, even though it was something he chose willingly, is an awful fate. Christ's words do not indicate that he thinks God has failed him, or that God has lost, but they are a cry born out of the pain he suffers when he feels the full wrath of God meted out upon him as a punishment for the sins of mankind.

In any event, the cross must be a victory for Christians because of Christ's resurrection on the third day. If Christ had not been raised up from the dead, then the cross would indeed have been a defeat.

This is basic Christian theology.

Who came up with that tortured rationalization?