The issue isn't whether commentators "today" think Jesus is a God, but rather if the writers of The New Testament thought Jesus was a God. McGrath, Kirk, and I say the writers of The New Testament didn't think Jesus was a God, but rather a human person.
And I agree with that too. Actually the author of the book of John might have and Paul may have, but in a spirit form. There isn't much from Paul that says Jesus was a person. Kirk is the one who is talking about is commonly thought today, or do you read that sentence differently.
Kirk means that in the synoptics Jesus is portrayed a (idealized) human.
Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Here's the line I'm referring to:
This may be the most important book in Christology to appear in recent years. Written in an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels, one who is absorbed into the “divine identity," Daniel Kirk makes a persuasive case for viewing the depiction of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke as one of idealized humanity.
So, 1st sentence "this book", "recent years". 2nd sentence, "Written in an era when". What is that phrase referring to?
It says "an era when it has become increasingly popular to insist that Jesus is already depicted as a pre-existent figure in the Synoptic Gospels." This means it is popular right now among bible scholars to argue that Jesus was depicted as a pre existent divine being in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is the trend that Kirk is arguing against.