That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time and that no single religion is entirely true (all presuppositions common in perennialism and comparative religion studies). There's no such thing as neutral ground and all evidence is theory laden and viewed through a paradigm. So why is your paradigm the correct one?

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time and that no single religion is entirely true (all presuppositions common in perennialism and comparative religion studies). Remember, there's no such thing as neutral ground and all evidence is theory laden and viewed through a paradigm.

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time and that no single religion is entirely true (all presuppositions common in perennialism and comparative religion studies). Remember, there's no such thing as neutral ground and all evidence is theory laden and viewed through a paradigm.

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time and that no single religion is entirely true (all presuppositions common in perennialism and comparative religion studies).

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time and that no single religion is entirely true.

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

That doesn't tell me much except that there were religions and cults that worshipped the sun and the moon as well as other natural objects. I don't disagree with that. You make a logical leap when you equivocate Christianity to those cults because of some superficial resemblance and your conclusion is arbitrary - it could very well be the case that Christianity is the true religion and all the pagan cults tried to explain God using the world around them and mythologizing the celestial objects. You start with a naturalistic presupposition about what religion is and how it came to be, that it evolved and was not revealed since the beginning of time.

How is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?

So how is Christ's name related to the sun or the moon?