Scathing rebuttal as follows:

First: Damn . . . just to make it easy on you.

Second: I agree with your last part about the Spirit being equally as active now as in the first century. That's foundational to me; I don't see any great breaks in the continuity of reality between today and any previous age. BUT, for me that is a fatal blow to orthodoxy, because I see no superiority of the paradigm of first century believers over modern day believers. The disciples of the first century were presented with a story just as we are, and both are required as a simple matter of fact to interpret it based on our understanding of reality.  

When you speak of rewriting Scripture according to our paradigm, I fail to see how we can speak pejoratively of doing so. In fact, I see such rewriting as our only option. I understand the concern that this could result in Scripture becoming "whatever we want" it to be. To this concern I would pose: do we really believe the Spirit is as active today? Really? If so, I believe that within community Scripture will always be rewritten, in the Spirit (Presence = Present) of God. We hold to the same Bible because we have no other access to Jesus. If we could figure a method for time travel, I would much prefer a few good documentaries from which to seek a more applicable interpretation of Jesus. Thus far, this has not proved a viable option. So, I stick with Scripture . . but according to my understanding, not theirs. Again I don't think they were better off than we.  

Third: I firmly agree that the Jesus of history is the core of our faith. I've never once questioned this. Never. But, all we know of Jesus is shrouded in myth and metaphor. I don't believe this is due to an attempt to obscure him, nor to make him out to be something other than what he was. In the paradigm of the first century though, myth and metaphor was interpretation. When presenting their Savior to the world, the first believers did what was utterly natural to them: present him in the category or a rabbi, miracle-worker, Pharisee, and in doing so also show how he was much more than any of these things. This was interpreting for them. Their interpretations, for myself and countless others in our contemporary world, have ceased to aid in understanding Jesus. In fact, quite the opposite if in the name of orthodoxy I am required to believe not only in Jesus as Lord, but also as supernatural miracle-man. Culturally, I don't find the first-century worldview to be superior, and if I am required to bastardize my own understanding of reality in order to call myself Christian, I am regrettably not. I agree with you that Christianity makes some fantastic claims. At the core of Christianity, I can perceive claims which will always seem outrageous. . . I've read Paul. I understand that some of our faith will appear as foolishness, but I feel that we have readily taken this as a justification (in the face of Modernism) for adhering to a syncretism of worldviews which are incompatible. We want to act as though it is perfectly fine to live by the principles of modernity in all facets of life, except religion where it is perfectly acceptable to flee to an inconsistent premodern view of history. I cannot accept this. The foolishness we embrace is one that remains no matter what paradigm we use to interpret Jesus. Therefore, I cannot look back on the first-century as a bygone time, utterly different from our own, where supernatural miracles were the rule. I only think that people of that time interpreted as miraculous, the same event that we would seek to understand through causal relationships. Where they saw God in the miracle worker, I see God in the depth of his humanity and I use the miracle myths to understand such humanity better.

Lastly: I see major theological problems with the idea that God simply sectored off part of himself in which death could reign for a while and be absorbed. The Living God stands over against death. But more importantly than all of this is that it represents a line of thought that is thoroughly foreign to Jews of any era, and unquestionably foreign to the Jews responsible for the writings of the New Testament. To these, God cannot die.

This is a big deal to me, because I see it as one of the major dividing lines between Christianity and the other two Abrahamic faiths. It is true, I am not currently in dialogue with many Jews of Muslims. But, I find it to be of no little theological importance that we live in a world where the annihilation of the human race could likely occur because of a disagreement between these religions. I find it to be the worst blasphemy to assume that such an event would be justified by some bullshit eschatology on the part of Christians who would dare to assume that God wills a final battle between those who know him as YHWH, God, or Allah. If there is any hope for the future of humanity, it will begin because we begin to take seriously the call to interpret our religions critically, and against what we are required to believe for the sake of remaining orthodox. As a Christian who takes seriously the threat which my own faith poses to the future of humanity, I see it as necessary to critique what I think to be outdated and divisive concepts of God, and Jesus the founder of my faith.

I say all that to say, I've thought seriously about these things. There is nothing trivial about them to me. I don't trifle with orthodoxy for the sake of stepping on toes.

We cling to the idea that God loved the world enough to send Jesus (whatever that may mean to us). Yet, we think it noble or unavoidable to allow the tension between religions to escalate towards the death of life itself. I can point the finger in this situation indefinitely towards any other and in the coming future the result of hell on earth will remain unchanged. Or, I can critique my own faith deeply, and in doing so see its true contribution to hope, while standing firmly against all the divisiveness it has represented. In doing so I cling to the thought that such an example will lead the world to be a place where God does not will, nor allow, me to kill another for choosing to call him Allah.

If I say anything controversial, it is because I have ceased to see a future in saying anything else.