but the fact that it is the divinity of Christ and the fact that it is the Messiah (the Savior)

This new direction tries to make the place where the gospel writes, as a representation to convey the fact of faith, rather than as the historical fact of it. For example, there is a miracle. I can think about two things about how sickness has healed or walked on water. Usually it is miraculous, that it is unlikely to happen so much that it is possible to do such things by the work of God, to take it as it is outside. In such a case, if a certain miracle was not historical fact, it means that such a thing did not actually occur, then the guarantee that God's work was there will disappear.
So by all means saying that a miracle happened exactly as being written, it would tend to cling to the historical fact.

But this modern way of thinking has changed slightly since becoming modern. In the Gospel, it began to realize that the another character is stronger rather than to describe the existence of that time like a biography. It is the character of teaching that teaches the faith that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, and spreads it to the whole world. In order to teach what is the god of Jesus, it came to thinking that various reasons brought a story of miracles, an angel appeared, sang a song, and called three doctors from the east began.

In other words, it is not the truth as a historical fact of such a strange things but the fact that it is the divinity of Christ and the fact that it is the Messiah (the Savior) that is shown through such a story is more important.
I wanted to say that to you there.This is quite different from the idea that unless the things like miracles really happened, the entire Bible can not be believed. In the end, I began to think about something else rather than whether it really was what it was writing. I wonder what he's wanted to say by that.