Chili

Yes it is important but the significance of the event is not to be sought in the history of Jesus but in the manifestation of God in man wherein we, as in each one of us, can be the son of man in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth was son of man. The name Jesus of Nazareth was like a title given to this son of man who always is and always will be created in the image of God here now reborn and exposed to the world so he might become fully man = God as in "my Lord and my God."

The atonement of original sin is required for this which is not the same as the atonement for original sin. Original sin is what caused our own sin nature and this is not a historic event but the division that took place in our own mind. Ie. it caused us to become rational beings (human) in addition to non-rational as God (man).

gurugeorge

Interesting, but without getting too far into theology (this isn't the place), my suspicion is that you'd've been burnt at the stake for saying this sort of thing 400 years ago. Such a relationship between God and man is altogether too close for literalist Christian comfort - why, what would be the purpose of established religious intercessors, especially established religious intercessors with a direct historical lineage back to the supposed "living Jesus", if what you say is true? What, indeed, would be the purpose even of "Jesus"?

At any rate, let me qualify what I said: I don't know whether the one-time, historical atonement by this "Jesus" character who was supposed to be the one and only incarnation of God in human flesh, is the central doctrine of Chili's particular Church (or perhaps Chili's personal reading of Christianity), but I know for sure that it's the central teaching of Roman Catholicism, because I was raised a Roman Catholic, and I'm also pretty sure it's the main teaching of most Protestant forms as well (at least those that I've heard of here in the UK).

Protestantism is much more personalised, of course, but it still sets great store by the historical existence of its avatar, and (except in ultra-liberal theological circles) one is enjoined in most forms of Christianity never to confuse the linkage any creature has with its Creator, with the direct "family relationship" this "Jesus" is supposed to have had with God. In Protestant forms, while there is no need of earthly intercessors to commune with "Jesus", "Jesus" is still the creature's proper interface with God.

The direct, mystical link you are reading into Christianity was perhaps there in some forms of Gnosticism, and seems to exist in some modern forms of Christianity influenced by Eastern mysticism, but it hasn't been a part of any of the main forms of Christianity for thousands of years. Christians who did espouse such a direct link or oneness (e.g. Meister Eckhart) were usually condemned as heretics.

Chili

Yes, let's not do that but I suspect that the Inquisitor would offer me a job. I should remind you here that I would not post this on a Catholic board (they would not tolerate it), but this is the philosophy department of an atheist board where the philosophy that underpins religion is sought. None of us ever were called Christian and we never spoke about Christianity. We were Catholic 'down here' and did not know much about what was going on 'up there' . . . which makes it difficult to be a heretic. You must know some Catholics like that? To this I say that poor Catholics are the good Catholics or they'd be pushing bibles and replacing the confessionals with hatching boxes. Yes, but let's not get into that. Oh no, it's all over in Catholic-ism but never in Christian-ity as a religion.

And BTW, if Meister Eckhart was condemned as heretic he must have been an apostle short. In my view the apostles were the personified eidetic images of Joseph redirected towards the completion of the purgation period which for him took place in Galilee.