[SoothingDave]

Re 3339

It become "deconstruction" only when one denies the Trinity or, worse yet, denies today's "traditional" Christianity.

It's deconstruction when one takes apart, bit-by-bit an established edifice. Which is what Steven did. We all watched it.

And not one of us, not one, practices the brand of "Christianity" of Jesus and the Apostles. It has been "deconstructed", "improved", and made into a form unrecognizeable to the early Church. And that is fine with me.

There is a difference between construction and de-construction. Between development of doctrine and an historical growing of a consensus versus a simple negation and disassembly of orthodoxies.

SD

[SoothingDave]

But there is a parallelism between the first and second Adam. If the first Adam brought condemnation upon everyone, why doesn't the second Adam bring grace in the same fashion?

Cause Jesus didn't have any children, to pass on this grace in this fashion.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

There is a difference between construction and de-construction. Between development of doctrine and an historical growing of a consensus versus a simple negation and disassembly of orthodoxies.

I agree. I was merely using "de-construction" because I thought it was a phony issue.

Has it ever occurred to you that an investigation of the changes caused by "development of doctrine" and "historical growing of a consensus" could lead to what you call "de-construction" in order to return to the full truth?

Maybe the extra-Scriptural "constructions" of the past 2,000 years require some "de-construction"?