Duvduv

OK, let me put it another way..... in reference to the content of this fictitious story......how does a fictitious account refer to a Jesus figure who is not a messianic or Christ figure, but simply a miracle worker??

aa5874

You seem to be implying that once a character is described as human then the character cannot ever be Mythological.

Well, Romulus and Remus the founders of Rome, born of the same woman and HUMAN brothers are considered Mythological.

May I remind you that Jesus, the 12 apostles and Saul/Paul are ALL fiction characters--they had NO existence BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE based on the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

Duvduv

Of course Jesus of the NT is mythological, but the believers and writers of the earliest period already believed that he actually existed as described.

aa5874

Well, do you believe that Myths like Jesus had actual physical bodies even without a human father and actually lived on earth with a mother?

Duvduv

Because that's what the gospel stories describe and what the writers/heresiologists/historians/Church has believed since then.

Duvduv

Clement's search for the historical Jesus which is very different than the usual rendition and elsewhere the author simply refers to Jesus as "the prophet.":

Chapter VI. Tidings from Judæa
And, not to discuss such matters to you in a long speech, while I was occupied with such reasonings and doings, a certain report, taking its rise in the spring-time, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, gradually grew everywhere, and ran through the world as truly the good tidings of God, being unable to stifle the counsel of God in silence. Therefore it everywhere became greater and louder, saying that a certain One in Judæa, beginning in the spring season, was preaching to the Jews the kingdom of the invisible God, and saying that whoever of them would reform his manner of living should enjoy it. And in order that He might be believed that He uttered these things full of the Godhead, He wrought many wonderful miracles and signs by His mere command, as having received power from God. For He made the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, raised up the bowed down, drove away every disease, put to flight every demon; and even scabbed lepers, by only looking on Him from a distance, were sent away cured by Him; and the dead being brought to Him, were raised; and there was nothing which He could not do. And as time advanced, so much the greater, through the arrival of more persons, and the stronger grew—I say not now the report, but—the truth of the thing; for now at length there were meetings in various places for consultation and inquiry as to who He might be that had appeared, and what was His purpose.

Chili

Yes, but that is called 'High Romance' wherein we feel engagement but must 'read between the lines' to get it right, and in the mean time we do co-create and pro-create until we [finally] got it right and so have done the dirty work for them, who is the 'mythmaker' here.

Duvduv

So when would the Clement story have been produced if the main protagonist simply thought he was looking for a miracle worker? Later chapters refers to the Christ, but it is unclear what his Christ actually was.

Duvduv

If the Christ sought by Clement was only a miracle worker, it stands to reason that the author knew nothing about the gospel Jesus despite thinking of a physical Jesus.