Christianity just a mix of other religions?

[Pah]

Thank you for the welcome.

Would you mind specifying particular gods?

Also, was the form they took the same as Jesus'? In other words, were they solely divine and become solely human or did they maintain both natures as did Christ?

I believe all of them took human form at one time or another. Zeus, in addition, took the form of vaious animals in his seductions. The were always divine.

-pah-

 

[logos]

I believe all of them took human form at one time or another. Zeus, in addition, took the form of vaious animals in his seductions. The were always divine.

-pah-

Ok, but when Christ became man He maintained His divinity. When Zeus or any of the other gods became human were they both fully human and fully divine?

 

[Pah]

Ok, but when Christ became man He maintained His divinity. When Zeus or any of the other gods became human were they both fully human and fully divine?

I'm not sure. I don't see why not. What's good for one god ought to be good for another.

Where are you going with all this?

-pah-

 

[linwood]

Also, was the form they took the same as Jesus'? In other words, were they solely divine and become solely human or did they maintain both natures as did Christ?

It wopuld seem to me that at least some had to.

If Zeus took human form and lost his divinity how would he return to his god form?

He`d have to be godly to be a god.

 

[logos]

I'm not sure. I don't see why not. What's good for one god ought to be good for another.

Where are you going with all this?

-pah-

I am trying to determine whether or not it is right to equate Jesus with other gods. The topic of this thread is that Christianity is just a mix of other religions, and in order to validate this claim, it seems (correct me if I am wrong) that the view is that Jesus is no different than any other gods. Therefore, I am trying to understand the basis of this claim by determining whether or not those on this board that ascribe to this theory believe that the other gods, Zeus and others, exhibited what is known as hypostatic union. Hypostatic Union is a term used in Christological studies that asserts that Jesus was always fully human and fully divine, even after His Incarnation, and in the forefront of the Council Fathers mind's when calling forth the Council of Nicæa in 325. However, it was not formally defined until 451 in the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[Pah]

I am trying to determine whether or not it is right to equate Jesus with other gods. The topic of this thread is that Christianity is just a mix of other religions, and in order to validate this claim, it seems (correct me if I am wrong) that the view is that Jesus is no different than any other gods. Therefore, I am trying to understand the basis of this claim by determining whether or not those on this board that ascribe to this theory believe that the other gods, Zeus and others, exhibited what is known as hypostatic union. Hypostatic Union is a term used in Christological studies that asserts that Jesus was always fully human and fully divine, even after His Incarnation, and in the forefront of the Council Fathers mind's when calling forth the Council of Nicæa in 325. However, it was not formally defined until 451 in the Council of Chalcedon.

I don't know that it is right to compare gods based on a particular characteristic other than the "divineness" of the god. "Divineness" has it's own difficulties that I won't get into. An object of faith is very much the same as any other object of faith. Existing as faith, gods are only differentiated by the personal faith held. To say that Zeus is a superior god (which a comparision establishes) is a matter of not having faith in the Titians.

-pah-

 

[logos]

I don't know that it is right to compare gods based on a particular characteristic other than the "divineness" of the god. "Divineness" has it's own difficulties that I won't get into. An object of faith is very much the same as any other object of faith. Existing as faith, gods are only differentiated by the personal faith held. To say that Zeus is a superior god (which a comparision establishes) is a matter of not having faith in the Titians.

-pah-

I never compared gods based solely upon divinity, but upon their divinity and humanness; two natures. The same two natures that are integral to an understanding of Christ and His Incarnation. The same two natures that are integral in understanding whether or not Christianity is merely a mix of other religions. You cannot talk about the religion, without talking about the founder.

I don't know that I agree with your idea of faith, however, I don't want to change the topic. If you wish to start another topic dealing with faith, I would be more than happy to.

Thanks

 

[Pah]

I never compared gods based solely upon divinity, but upon their divinity and humanness; two natures. The same two natures that are integral to an understanding of Christ and His Incarnation. The same two natures that are integral in understanding whether or not Christianity is merely a mix of other religions. You cannot talk about the religion, without talking about the founder.

A "mix" does not imply that Christianity is without original content. For one instance, Christianity incorporates a particular "history" that is unique to Christianity. It is formed under a hierarchy unique to Christianity, for another instance. Nor does it imply, in my mind, that the mixture was a theft or something "borrowed". It is only important, when realizing the commonality of the "images" Christianity presents, to understand that the "truth" of Christianity is not assured.

Plead for your "two natures" if you like. It is only a matter of editing my words to have them apply to the criticism I gave. One, two, or more natures - it makes no difference.

I don't know that I agree with your idea of faith, however, I don't want to change the topic. If you wish to start another topic dealing with faith, I would be more than happy to.

Thanks

I feel divinity, the subtopic you introduced in refuting the primary topic, is part and parcel of faith. You can not speak of one without including the other when discussing Christianity.

-pah-

 

[logos]

A "mix" does not imply that Christianity is without original content. For one instance, Christianity incorporates a particular "history" that is unique to Christianity. It is formed under a hierarchy unique to Christianity, for another instance. Nor does it imply, in my mind, that the mixture was a theft or something "borrowed".

Agreed

It is only important, when realizing the commonality of the "images" Christianity presents, to understand that the "truth" of Christianity is not assured.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this, I am not sure I fully understand.

Plead for your "two natures" if you like. It is only a matter of editing my words to have them apply to the criticism I gave. One, two, or more natures - it makes no difference.

How so?

I feel divinity, the subtopic you introduced in refuting the primary topic, is part and parcel of faith. You can not speak of one without including the other when discussing Christianity.

In what context?

 

[Pah]

A "mix" does not imply that Christianity is without original content. For one instance, Christianity incorporates a particular "history" that is unique to Christianity. It is formed under a hierarchy unique to Christianity, for another instance. Nor does it imply, in my mind, that the mixture was a theft or something "borrowed".

It is only important, when realizing the commonality of the "images" Christianity presents, to understand that the "truth" of Christianity is not assured.

Logos:
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this, I am not sure I fully understand.
With so many telling the same stories as their faith, how is one to choose the "real" faith?

Plead for your "two natures" if you like. It is only a matter of editing my words to have them apply to the criticism I gave. One, two, or more natures - it makes no difference

.
Logos:
How so?
I don't know that it is right to compare gods based on a human nature or any other aspect other than the "divineness" of the god

I feel divinity, the subtopic you introduced in refuting the primary topic, is part and parcel of faith. You can not speak of one without including the other when discussing Christianity.

Logos:
In what context?
In any context. Divinity is an unspoken assumption that resides in faith. Christianity>faith>divinity
-pah-

 

[logos]

With so many telling the same stories as their faith, how is one to choose the "real" faith?

See, that is the problem right there, these to you seem to be merely stories and nothing more. If they do not have an effect on your life as nothing more than stories than I cannot convince you that they are anything more. We would merely be speaking in circles.

I don't know that it is right to compare gods based on a human nature or any other aspect other than the "divineness" of the god

If we are to speak about other gods then you are right it is not "right," however, that is the point: The Incarnation was the first time in history that God became man and was both fully human and fully divine.

In any context. Divinity is an unspoken assumption that resides in faith. Christianity>faith>divinity

Ok, I am beginning to understand my difficulty. Would you mind defining what you mean by both divinity and faith?

Thanks