[Glenmerle]

Perhaps that was his specialness, or part of it.

His "specialness" was that he was God incarnate. Good grief, he was either who he claimed to be or he was, paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, on the same level as a man who claimed to be a poached egg. Just one fact alone--that he took for himself the ability to forgive sins committed by one man against another--tells you he was either who he said he was or a nut. And a nut is not a wise man or a good teacher.

[antiRepublicrat]

Just one fact alone--that he took for himself the ability to forgive sins committed by one man against another--tells you he was either who he said he was or a nut.

Logical fallacy of false dilemma. Third option: those who wrote of him long after his death ascribed to him things he did not say or do.