BaylorJacket said:
Ursus Americanus said:
BaylorJacket said:
Ursus Americanus said:
BaylorJacket said:
Ursus Americanus said:
BaylorJacket said:
Ursus Americanus said:
He Hate Me said:
Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.
They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.
Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.
While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.
The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.
I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.
You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.
"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."
Why would you do that?
The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)
I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.
If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.
There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.
So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.
And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.
I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.
You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision
Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.
I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.
If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.
It's straight forward stuff.
And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.