Here are some quotes from my reading on 20th century Christology.
I find it very hard to see how someone can base faith on a narrative which they hold to be historically fictitious.
Grasped in its proper Trinitarian depth, the gospel narrative not only breaks down all human perceptions of beauty, goodness, and truth, but reorients these broken perceptions around the centre to which it bears witness, and in this way reconstitutes and perfects them. Jesus' cross and resurrection are like a magnetic point around which history and culture take on a shape which could not be anticipated from any perspective they themselves provide, and which they could not otherwise have assumed. This single point of fact contains a meaning that surpasses, consummated and embraces every other projected meaning.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama
One of the consequences of the Western Church's two centuries of fumbling with the historical-critical method is a loss of any sense of the connection between the classical doctrines of the Church and the text of scripture.
What is so profoundly odd about Philippians 2:10-11 is that it identifies the prophesied universal acknowledgement of the unique deity of YHWH with the universal cultic acclamation of an apparent “other”, Jesus of Nazareth. The difficulty is palpable: if “there is no other” how can the bending of knees and the loosing of tongues at the name of some other be compatible, much less identified with the recognition of the “glory” of the God of Israel?
A reduction in Jesus Christ's saving significance is precisely what Arius's present-day representatives want, for implicit in much modern critique of ancient theology is the supposition that we do not really require saving because in some sense we are intrinsically able to save ourselves, in some way we are already implicitly or potentially divine.