Posted: Aug 06, 2019 12:15 am
RealityRules wrote:...... They are entirely symbolic texts, and entirely elaborated within the framework of Judaism of the time. Only a hermeneutical confusion -- that is to say, the taking of what was to be taken figuratively, accentuated by the multiplicity of languages used at the time (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) -- explains the subsequent belief in an existing man."
Christians did not believe their Jesus was an existing man. Their very stories show they believe their Jesus was god in the flesh born without a human father.
It is clearly shown that Christian writers had no history of the birth or death of their Jesus and invented fictional events for the character in the time of Pilate.
In effect, Christian stories of their Jesus are all non-historical .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm
On the Flesh of Christ
Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed................ He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.