West,

I think thank Philo has point to the extent that Christians "believe" they are celebrating Jesus' birthday. Christians are not realising/seeing that syncretion is involved and created by Constantine's mob. Perhaps, in a polythiest society, we would have a Christ-Mithras duelity, likewise an Isis-Virgin Mary. The error Christians make, I suggest, is they don't set their stone [scripture/teachings] into the probing ring of history. Scripture too often is raw comment void of valid historical context [except place names and a few leaders].

Moreover, Christian doctrine is more based on [St.] Paul, Constantine and Augustine than Jesus, who may been a faith healer? Nicaea (325 CE) had to deal with a hotch-potch of "Chinese Whispers", which evolved from oral lore, and, later, between 80-120+ CE, localised fables/interpretations each with their own provincial spin across Galillee, Northen and Southern Syria and Asia.

Philosophically, leveraging MichaeL Polanyi on other posts, I have argued mass/church is a process of "indwelling", wherein the purpose of the event is a performance and encirclement not objective analysis of events, let alone a null hypothesis.

More recently, I have read in a more general context:

"Historical scholarship of history has always been 'tilting at windmills'. Historical myths like Columbus discovering the Earth was round perist, even when historians have known them to be wrong for generations. A closed loop of misinformation propagates from generation to generation." -- David Attis History of Science Society [2008], University of Chicago Press

Attis cites astrology, alchemy and religion, as problematic.

Herein, I put,if one wants understand theology then the sermon and scriptures need been evaluated from the perspective cultural-anthrology not merely the paroting of the doctrine taught by a priesthood holding biases and having careers at stake in the progation of langsyne affinities

Oliver,
Of all the antagonists of Christendom on OLO I find you are a very balanced debater. You would recognise my objections to much of Religious dogma, Church creeds and established doctrine. I endeavour to evaluate what was the original context and what was factually represented. Unfortunately listeners who do not fully grasp the original meaning misrepresent the fact by their preconceptions and interpret the facts in that context of preconceptions. As you would recognise from my objection to the line 'God was born of a virgin by immaculate conception as a man' from my previous posts. The concept of what was meant by "virgin" has been misrepresented.

The whole basis of much Church doctrine has been built on this false premise. When in the NT makes no such statement about immaculate conception. Jesus own words emphasises that to be a 'son of God' one must be reborn of the spirit of God. Physical birth does not qualify, family heritage or nationalism does not qualify a person as a son of God. It is one's personal realisation in whose image we were designed to live.

It means changing our attitudes and selfish ways to now live in God. However we all fall short, but we need repentance (being able to say sorry when we have offended), confession (admit to the person we have offended), and forgiveness (realisation we are totally free of guilt and fear of further punishment).

Philo,

Thank you for your contributions to this Forum.

I am not anti-religionism, rather I would like to think I have a protagonist towards rightful approaches to knowledge discovery. Here, I think the history of civilizations has as much to contribute to insights as does science.

Moreover, I see [2nd-4th century] Christianity somewhat detached from Jesus and distorted by accretions. Were we to look at Jesus, I think, we would, early on, need to build constructs on the meanings of the following:

- "Son of God"
- "Son of Man"
- "Kingdom of Heaven/God"

With what has come down to us in history the first two terms lack clarity [internal consistancy] owing to ambiguity in meaning. The latter in the context the NT might suggest a different kind of Messiah that the Jewish folk were expecting. Even then.if it were possible, to manage these matters, we are left with what is reported of Jesus, not knowledge of whom Jesus was on Earth.

Oliver,
On the following I see the NT saying:
- "Son of God" Jesus never claimed himself to be the son of God nor does the NT writers claim his birth as giving him status as the son of God. The apostle Paul claimed his status on the fact of his resurrection. Jesus in defence of himself when accused by the religious heirarchy identifies himself as son of God in the terms David in the Psalms uses. The term means one who represents God incarnate. The claims he was the son of God come from witnesses to his life, his character, attitudes and actions. By this claim they stated he was the true representative of God - the Messiah.

- "Son of Man"
This is the term Jesus constantly used of himself and identifies he has an ordained Messianic mission to mankind.

- "Kingdom of Heaven/God"
The kingdom of heaven is the realm where the character of God is fully realised - unconditional love, peace of heart and mind, joyfulness, perseverence, acts of kindness, purity of heart and motive, gentleness, and self control.

These are the aspirations followers of Christ ought to live in and by if they are to realise the kingdom of God.

Philo,

Thank you:

Son of Man: "This is the term Jesus constantly used of himself and identifies he has an ordained Messianic mission to mankind."

Would this messianic mission be to all mandkind? In that period I thought the Jews would have been expecting a Messiah to re-establish Israel to the glory days of David and Solomon?

The House of David genaelogy is significant, yet would seem to be negated by virgin birth [release not your view] and not having Joseph's DNA. The Hedodian Dynasty [Roman Puppets] wouldn't too pleased, either.

Jesus would seem to have booth feet in hot water not being aligned with the expected paint of The Messiah and offering an alternative to Herod.

David,

Would you describe your Foundation as anti-religious or non-religious or is it factionalised? Where do you stand?

Oliver,

“Would you describe your Foundation as anti-religious or non-religious or is it factionalised? Where do you stand?”

The AFA is anti-religious in much as religion indoctrinates children and a proportion of those children then go on to influence politics with those beliefs.

The AFA is against all types of indoctrination. Especially if it involves threats and promises.

The AFA expects public policy to be based on empirical evidence and not religious beliefs,

The AFA has no gripe with consenting adults practising their religion in private. The proviso is that religion in an unrepresentative manner does not interfere in matters of state, which can affect all of the population.

Most, if not every members of the AFA would be in agreement with the above.

David