Replies

I'll give this one last thought. Whether this Adam Bradford or you intend it or not, it seems to me that this whole line of argument is to explain events that seem plausible from a human perspective. As a human, that has a natural appeal. The problem is that it discounts the supernatural and divine nature of Christ. You can make an argument well Christ must have only been allowed to overturn the money changers tables without penalty because he was a great Rabbi, but could it be because he was G_d and he had authority that no one dare confront in that moment. You say yes, but he was human and he functioned as human. Yes he did human things like eating, but he also fed 5000 with a few fishes and loaves. It's an enigma that I can't really understand I admit. The author seems to always focus on his humanity, however. He mentions Jesus remarking that he had to be in his Fathers house and claims that it has a double meaning. That's a stretch. I recall Jesus being informed that his mother and brothers were wondering about him, and he replied “who are mother and brothers”. I doubt the reference to his Fathers house in any way refers to his stepfather that didn't even have a blood link to his human side. Time and again this author focuses on the earthly to explain Christ. Whether he or you intend it, you are purposely ignoring the inexplicable divine nature of Christ. The author claims that Jesus’ high ranking was purposely written out of history. Really, the living Lord of all creation is unable to bring us an accurate accounting of events or has purposely brought us a flawed
accounting of events down through the ages until now? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. I'm sure you aren't convinced otherwise either. Regardless, one day we'll both find out who was right, or maybe both, or neither entirely.

History is about human perspectives.
This whole line of argument does not necessarily discount the divine nature of Christ, actually it can lead to a deeper appreciation of it.
You do not seem to have read the book or even heard the mp3, but are quick to judge.
A possible issue in your well-intended comments is that Jesus, instead of being fully God and fully man, becomes fully God and half man/ half superman. When Jesus’ actions were all God (eg the transfiguration), the gospel writers make it clear. Most of what he did was as a man who was also the Christ, and as a model for what we should be doing as men who are not the Christ but are Christ-ians - little Christs.
also Jesus continually used parables etc and spoke on 2 levels of meaning. I don’t see why it should be any different age 12.

On a different note I’m intrigued that you don’t spell out the Name of God- I thought that was just a Jewish thing?