Christianity is an appropriation

Where is the evidence for these claims about the gods Jesus supposedly imitated?

Especially the "had 12 disciples," or "dead for 3 days," or even "born on Dec. 25" (which is not true of Jesus)?

Yeah, history is important. You probably won't find legitimate history on TikTok.

Jesus did not imitate anyone. Man appropriated past religions and projected onto their beliefs. Also, travel was more prolific as was the written word.

www.history.com/.amp/news/inside-the-conversion-tactics-of-the-early-christian-church

This is such a lazy tactic. You just post tiktok videos. 

I am not watching it. This is a forum. If you have an argument to make or some commentary to share, do so. Post a video to support that, sure. 

I did not ask you to "regurgitate" the information for me. I said:

"If you have an argument to make or some commentary to share, do so."

There is nothing to "invest" in here, all you said was "History is important"

Is that your TikTok video?

If not, that is not your argument at all. It is just a lazy posting of a link. If your argument is that we are watching "the right recreate authoritarian rule" this is the Religion forum... 

Nevermind, such an assertion is silly since it is generally "the right" who is supporting less government in general, as well as less regulation and more freedoms. 

It's funny because the Church of Christendom exercised far more "authoritarian rule" than is present anywhere in the west today. Very few are actively trying to re-implement that (especially because that particular culture expression of "the Church" carried in it many contradictions in particular and in general with what is taught and demonstrated in the Bible).

You can make a much stronger case for appropriation in metaphysics. Mainstream Christianity's views of the relationships between body and soul, mind and material, God and man, and so on are heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy.

The earliest surviving Christian creed (Philippians 2:6-11) says that Jesus was in the Morfe of God, emptied himself, and took on the Morfe of Man. Morfe is often translated as "form", both in the New Testament and in Plato. Although Morfe can mean an ordinary shape, in Plato it refers to the true essences of things that transcend their appearances in the world. For example, even though there are nearly 8 billion human beings, there is a Morfe of Man - a true essence of what it means to be human - that transcends each of us and allows us to distinguish a human being from, say, a tiger. The earliest creed is probably using the Platonic meaning.

The Gospel of John says that Jesus is Logos of God, usually translated as "Word" of God. The Platonic meaning of Logos is complex and involves how the divine can interact with the world. Even having studied philosophy, I don't fully understand what the Platonists were trying to say. It's extremely esoteric, and in fact, it may actually relate to altered states of mind brought on by religious rituals, meditation, prayer, psychoactive substances, etc. Having said all that, St. John is clearly borrowing the Platonic term to describe how Jesus is the link between God and the world.

Christian descriptions of the structure of God, developed hundreds of years after the New Testament was written, also borrow heavily from Platonic philosophy. The person/essence distinction of the Trinity? Is Jesus the same substance or a similar substance as God? All of these questions are framed in terms from Platonic philosophy, not from Judaism.

However, I hate the term "appropriation". If someone stole something, say they stole it. If they adopted it, say they adopted it. If they are mocking it, say they are mocking it. If they are imitating it, say they are imitating it. If they are collaborating to work with it, say that. If you think any of these actions are wrong, say that, too. We have more meaningful terms to describe all the different things around "appropriation" and to describe whether it's good or bad. Let's use them.

And finally, if someone has an idea that is right or useful, OF COURSE WE SHOULD ADOPT IT. If the Platonists are correct about the relationship between the divine and the world, the Christians made the right choice by adopting it, and all of us should ALSO adopt it. Good ideas are good whoever develops them, and we should adopt every good idea. (At the risk of stating the obvious, I am a post-modern atheist materialist, and I think the Platonists are wrong about nearly everything.)

I would agree that Nicene and proto-Nicene Christianity* adopted much more Platonism than the Hebrew Bible intended. Primarily, the Hebrew Bible does not usually endorse the sharp distinction between body and mind that Nicene Christians believe in.

However, the NT does include two of the most important Platonic ideas and uses them to speak of the relationship between Jesus and God. That's a lot of Platonism!

* I think this illustrates what I mean better than "Mainstream".

To be fair, almost all Greeks believed in eternal life after death, albeit not in the Nicene Heaven/Hell sense. That's definitely not a Platonic-only view.

I suppose the most biblical view of life after death is that all will sleep until the Day of Resurrection. On that day, the living and the resurrected dead will be judged according to their deeds. The righteous - either by faith in Christ or perhaps by good works - will be granted immortal, flawless, sinless bodies, and they will live forever with God and Jesus. The unrighteous will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire along with sin, death, and the grave.

Of course, you can find plenty of verses that contradict that tidy interpretation. The Bible is vague and confusing about what happens after death, and that's just the core 66 books! Add in the deuterocanon and it gets even more confusing. Then you get the Holy Tradition supposedly handed down from the Apostles and...hoo boy.