Replies

This "priest" stated clearly in the article that there was nothing special about Jesus until his ministry.

Jesus himself indicates this when he tells his mother its not yet his time in regards to changing the wedding wine into water. Further, John and Mark start there gospels with John the baptist. This minsiter is on fairly firm ground with this comment seeing that 1/2 the Gospel writers agree as well As Jesus himself.

> "Further, John and Mark start there gospels with John the baptist. This minsiter is on fairly firm ground with this comment seeing that 1/2 the Gospel writers agree as well As Jesus himself."

*sigh*... 1/2 the gospels start with his ministry therefore the Christmas story is irrelevant? Read your bible again. John starts with affirming Jesus's divine nature.

Besides, it isn't just the gospels. Prophecy in the Old Testament affirm Jesus's ancestry and nature and most of the books of the New Testament make a referral in some regards.

You can't have it both ways. If you believe Jesus died for your sins, you can't believe he was a regular John Q. Public. Perfect attonement came from God dying the death we deserved. The Christmas story is the sine qua non (without which not) of the New Testament. Perhaps the other gospel writers took it as understood... who knows? I do know, though, that they didn't contradict the other two gospels in their accounts.

I'm no biblical scholar so this is supposition on my part but I think it likely the gospel writers wrote within their understanding. John and Mark were there for Jesus's ministry and later life so they stuck to this topic. Luke, on the other hand, has shown himself to be an historian (as in the Book of Acts) and reached back earlier.

I maintain that this "priest" is discounting his own faith. It's not doubt (or at least it doesn't register as such in the article), it's open rejection of this part of Christ's nature. That is huge and he should resign this "job."