@fuat2mb His essay throws John Chapter 1 and all the miracles out the window. 'harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities'.
I find all theologies that deny the supernatural and purport to be Christian fall over there own feet as Jesus's own teaching was the greatest commandment is to love God (a supernatural being).
@Aslanmane @fuat2mb I'd like to read that later. FWIW my own theological certainties of 20 years ago in some cases don't resemble those of today.
@Aslanmane @fuat2mb I find this paper hard to read. At times he seems to be expressing his own difficulties with seeing Jesus from a conventional metaphysical perspective (as in the Creeds), saying he finds it easier to discern divinity in other aspects of Jesus' story. That's very much in line with mid-century liberal Christianity as I understand it. (I'm using liberal here as a technical term, not as an epithet.) His final words are less equivocal. I'm not ready to judge King based on a single essay, as I would hope not to be judged on that basis myself.
@royal @fuat2mb I agree with the liberal designation. here's another essay.
The last paragraph in particular is of interest.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/sources-fundamentalism-and-liberalism-considered-historically-and
@Aslanmane @fuat2mb Yep, pretty clear in 1949/1950 he's a fan of liberalism and not enamored of what he calls fundamentalism.