OzSpen

I take you to task on your confessed orthodoxy.
You may be an orthodox Christian in these times, but Christianity is historically built on shifting sands with orthodoxy.

Lack of consistency in its literature over two thousand years, has added confusion.
The belief in the trinity has been an evolutionary process. Explaining away the Christian God head from the orthodox stance as you do, relies on the belief of the infallibility of the biblical text as it now stands.

The Liberal view is Academic. It is more inclined to see the evolution of the Christian faith in term of history.
I see a danger in both views. The extreme of the liberal view is effectively disbelief in the creed, which I see as created by an overly questioning study for which it’s reward is lack of faith, followed by agnosticism; because the text through the years has been inconsistent and often tied into current historical events.

I think all orthodoxies should be questioned without risking loss of faith. You say your views are orthodox, but are they also fundamentalist by the same nature.
Fundamentalism led to the extreme of orthodoxy with the creation of Jimmy Jones, and his people’s Temple horror story.

Dan

<<Only fundamental fanatics try to make him more than a man born of woman.>>

Yes, mate, evangelical believers like me, who take the Scriptures seriously, know that you are dumping your presuppositions on us.

You don't know the Bible, do you? Why don't you own up to the logical fallacies you use whenever articles on this forum clash with your worldview, particularly Christian related topics?

Let's check the Scriptures: 'Jesus answered, “The fact is, before Abraham was born, I Am.” When he said this, they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid, and then he left the Temple area" (John 8:58-59).

We know from John chapter 5 that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath. This did not please the Jewish leaders as they questioned Jesus about his violation of the Jewish law. Jesus claimed authority over the Sabbath.

Those Jews began trying to make Jesus stop these actions on the Sabbath. 'But he said to them, “My Father never stops working, and so I work too.” This made them even more determined to kill him. They thought it was bad enough that he was breaking the law about the Sabbath day. And now he was saying that God is his Father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD' (John 5:16-18).

Have you ever read this in Scripture? Peter called Jesus, “Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Did Jesus support your view and emphatically deny he was the Son of God? Not at all! Jesus' response was: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven" (Matt 16:17).

Jesus emphatically affirmed he was the Son of God and not just the son of man. The Bible contradicts your view. I suggest you obtain a REAL theological education by taking the Bible seriously and examining its claims.

diver dan,

<<Christianity is historically built on shifting sands with orthodoxy.>>

Then you gave not one example of these "shifting sands", so you built a straw man fallacy.

<<Lack of consistency in its literature over two thousand years, has added confusion.>>

Have you read EVERYTHING of Christianity from the 1st to 21st centuries to conclude about the "lack of consistency". Or is this a fallacy of generalisation that springs forth from your worldview?

<<The belief in the trinity has been an evolutionary process.>>

False again! The trinitarian teaching is orthodox from the "us" of Genesis 1 to the full blown articulation in the New Testament. Ray Pritchard asked: "What is the Trinity? Christians in every land unite in proclaiming that our God eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those who deny that truth place themselves outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Having said that, I admit that no one fully understands it. It is a mystery and a paradox. Yet I believe it is true", http://www.christianity.com/god/trinity/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html.

The Trinity is not an "evolving" doctrine but one that is seen more clearly with progressive revelation in moving from Old Testament to New Testament.

<<The Liberal view is Academic.>>

No, the Liberal view changes what the Bible states. There are sound, evangelical, academic views of the orthodox Trinity: http://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/evangelical-statement-trinity-0.

See also, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-we-got-here-the-evangelical-trinitarian-milieu/

<<You say your views are orthodox, but are they also fundamentalist by the same nature.>>

I said my views were "evangelical". You have inserted "orthodox" and "fundamentalist."

<<Fundamentalism led to the extreme of orthodoxy with the creation of Jimmy Jones, and his people’s Temple horror story.>>

This is an ad hominem (guilt by association) fallacy. Here you have a negative view of my beliefs because of its supposed association with Jim Jones, that you view negatively. We cannot have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Thank you Spencer.

OzOen

One of the problems dealing with people on this site, is accommodating their hypersensitive natures .

I’m not about to trade scriptural references towards proving a theory I put forward to you, based on my observations over a lifetime on this subject.

But like it or not, the question of “who is Christ“ has as many answers as history has to any other subject.

So the difficulty with the answer is, the difficulty of who debates the question, and the biases that are natural in the mix. And historically, the question of who is Christ, has shifted through the years; that’s the point I make.

On another point you raised, which I noticed in your article, which was the differing opinions adding a different emphasis on scripture, between Liberals and evangelicals.
Unless there is consistency, then there are dangers in both views.
Jimmy Jones began his ministry with good intentions, but he lost the plot and strayed from tradition. Tradition is very much where the Liberals are. Viz Peter Selleck on this forum.

Dan

Yes Dean Phillip Jensen was in error in claiming that God was born at Christmas. The New Testament of the Bible is emphatic that it was Jesus who was born as a man approximately 2024 years ago.

There were several occasions when Jesus identified Himself as God and alluded to His eternal existence eg in John 8:58, but to say that God was born at Christmas is not correct.

This indiscretion is trivial however, compared with the mass of Christmas furphies believed by many at this time of the year. eg "Man will live forever more, because of Christmas Day".