christianity from paganism

[Jenett]

I don't have sources. I inquire why the Abrahamics who lived in the desert give so much value to a tree?

Two reasons: climate changes over time (don't assume that's what there now is what's always been there!) and people do tend to value what's not abundant (so even in the places trees were not common, they might be highly valued.)

[Redfaery]

I don't have sources. I inquire why the Abrahamics who lived in the desert give so much value to a tree?

You said it was "taken" from Norse Paganism, which is simply not supported by any evidence I've ever seen. Yggdrasil is an Axis Mundi, and the Tree in Genesis is...not. They simply do not serve the same function.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[arete]

You said it was "taken" from Norse Paganism, which is simply not supported by any evidence I've ever seen. Yggdrasil is an Axis Mundi, and the Tree in Genesis is...not. They simply do not serve the same function.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I don't think they copied the exact tree, rather than they were strongly influenced by yggdrasil.

[Noctua]

I don't think they copied the exact tree, rather than they were strongly influenced by yggdrasil.

For that to happen though, it would mean that there would have been direct communication (and therefore trade) between Norse/Germanic peoples and the Middle East in or around 600 BCE or earlier, as that was the time that the books of the old testament were first being written.

I think it's far more likely that two different societies came up with similar stories at the same time- heck, that kind of stuff happens all the time. Look at all the different mythologies that have flood stories- there was probably something that prompted them to all come up with this mythos, but they all did it a bit differently. Or a more modern example is the invention of Calculus, both Leibniz and Newton independently came to the development of the same system of mathematics. Newton even accused Leibniz of plagiarism but examination of both of their notes determined they both did it independently.

[Zlote Jablko]

For that to happen though, it would mean that there would have been direct communication (and therefore trade) between Norse/Germanic peoples and the Middle East in or around 600 BCE or earlier, as that was the time that the books of the old testament were first being written.

I think it's far more likely that two different societies came up with similar stories at the same time- heck, that kind of stuff happens all the time. Look at all the different mythologies that have flood stories- there was probably something that prompted them to all come up with this mythos, but they all did it a bit differently. Or a more modern example is the invention of Calculus, both Leibniz and Newton independently came to the development of the same system of mathematics. Newton even accused Leibniz of plagiarism but examination of both of their notes determined they both did it independently.

Or another, more plausible explanation is that both were inspired by an even older body of myths, rather than either one drawing directly from the other.

In reconstructed PIE (Proto-Indo-European) mythology, there is a consistent appearance of a tree with magical fruit, as well as an underworld serpent at the base of the axis mundi (mountain or tree.) That definitely has a relationship with Norse mythology. With Hebrew or Semitic culture, it’s a little bit hazy how they could have inherited that. Maybe the wicked serpent was influenced in part by the Hittite Illuyanka, much as the Semitic Baal Hadad was syncretized with Teshub/Tarhun. But that’s just a thought.

[Darkhawk]

The Bible speaks of the tree of life. Isn't it taken from the tree Yggdrasil of the norse religion?

No.

[arete]

What did christianity take from Paganism?

Christianity has something unique that paganism doesnot have. Christianity has the strongest faith and the strongest miracles. That is why Christianity is vital and unique. 

[Hariti]

Christianity has the strongest faith and the strongest miracles.

I happen to disagree on both points. In any faith, you can find strong believers and less-strong believers. I've met quite a few cynical Christians in my day, as well as extremely devout followers of other faiths. Of course, I've also met quite a few devout Christians as well, and cynical followers of other religions. I just don't think that level of faith correlates with what religion you follow; rather, it's an individual person who has strong or weak faith.

As for miracles, most religions claim they happen, no religion has yet proven they happen. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but there's no way to quantify which religion has stronger miracles when none of them can show any testable proof of miracles happening.

What makes Christianity unique is it's mythology, it's cosmology, it's ethics, and it's rituals. Sure, there are lots of commonalities between different religions, but that's true for all religious systems, not just Christianity.

No other religion has the same, exact, specific combination of beliefs, practices, ethics, and myths that Christianity has. It's a unique religious tradition, without needing to be "better" or "stronger" than any other.

[ehbowen]

I happen to disagree on both points...As for miracles, most religions claim they happen, no religion has yet proven they happen. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but there's no way to quantify which religion has stronger miracles when none of them can show any testable proof of miracles happening.

Well, although I will agree that in the present order of things, at least in our small slice of the universe, one cannot on cue show "testable proof" which would be satisfactory to those inclined to be skeptical, I do disagree with you in regards to the importance of miracles in Christianity. While I do not claim to be an expert on Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam my understanding is that if it could be shown that, for example, Muhammad was never actually caught up to Heaven or that the miraculous stories of other faith systems were fabricated or "stretched", the underlying belief systems and practices would be affected not at all.

Not so for Christianity. If it could be shown that Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary human and, especially, that the central fact of the Resurrection did not occur exactly as related, Christianity would and should collapse completely. The central observations...baptism shows that the candidate has been raised from the water as Jesus was raised from the dead. Communion..."by this you do proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Paul said bluntly that if in this life alone we have hope then we are to be pitied more than any other men.

And while I can't prove it to the satisfaction of those who WANT to be skeptical, something happened to turn those disciples, women, and other followers from a ragtag group of fishermen cowering in an upper room for fear of the Romans and the Jews into a resolute cadre of fearless believers who were willing to withstand both Jewish leaders and Roman magistrates to their faces and to willingly go to their deaths rather than recant. That's enough to prove it to me...even without meeting His Sister!

[Louisvillian]

Paganism is by far older than christianity. Christianity was influenced heavily from paganism, even though christians don't want to admit it. What did christianity take from Paganism?

Well, someone's been hitting that Golden Bough pretty hard.

The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." Christians took the holiday and made it the birth of Jesus.

It's largely a coincidence. Christians were talking about December 25th being Jesus' nativity around fifty years before Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was established. The Roman festival was founded in 276.
It's important to remember that the Roman concept of nativity with respect to a certain deity has nothing to do with the deity's actual "birth", but with the anniversary of the dedication of a temple to that deity.

I don't have sources. I inquire why the Abrahamics who lived in the desert give so much value to a tree?

Funny that. The region in which the Abrahamic religions developed and flourished was not exactly a desert at the time. Mesopotamia and much of the Levantine coast was richly forested. The Romans deforested it.

[Hariti]

I can agree that miracles are more important to Christianity than to most other religious systems. What I was arguing against in my previous post was that Christian miracles are more "powerful" than other miracles in terms of frequency or potency. If you take powerful to mean "impactful on the faith" I guess Aretre has a point.

[ehbowen]

I can agree that miracles are more important to Christianity than to most other religious systems. What I was arguing against in my previous post was that Christian miracles are more "powerful" than other miracles in terms of frequency or potency. If you take powerful to mean "impactful on the faith" I guess Aretre has a point.

I can agree with that; while I'm not familiar with claims of the miraculous in a Hindu context it can be argued successfully that the miracles of Jesus and the apostles didn't even match up with the Jewish Old Testament from a "power" standpoint...i.e., Jesus never parted the Red Sea. The Resurrection is, possibly, an exception.

[Sefiru]

The region in which the Abrahamic religions developed and flourished was not exactly a desert at the time. Mesopotamia and much of the Levantine coast was richly forested. The Romans deforested it.

Huh, I recall reading that it was side effects of irrigation (mineral buildup in the soil) that caused the change. Of course that might be outdated/disproved by now. Do you happen to have a reference I could read up on this with?

[Darkhawk]

Funny that. The region in which the Abrahamic religions developed and flourished was not exactly a desert at the time. Mesopotamia and much of the Levantine coast was richly forested. The Romans deforested it.

To add to that: Egypt, which imported cedar from that area (note the modern Lebanese flag is still a cedar tree) because it had no timber-producing trees of its own, had a fair amount of tree-related theology, also.  (Egyptian woodwork is full of piecework, because the trees that survived in that environment tended small and twisty and so they had to put together something like marquetry to get anywhere.)  The Tree Goddess is comparatively minor but apepars in a number of chthonic texts and illustrations, and everyone's garden-in-the-afterlife included fruiting trees as a core thing.

It's funny how a long-lived, durable entity that produces regular foodstuffs and offers shade can be really important in a desert region.  Sacred, even!

[arete]

For that to happen though, it would mean that there would have been direct communication (and therefore trade) between Norse/Germanic peoples and the Middle East in or around 600 BCE or earlier, as that was the time that the books of the old testament were first being written.

The Vikings were travelers. Didn't they reach middle east?