Parenting & Family Quote by John Clayton

Clayton’s question doesn’t just poke at theology; it pokes at authorship and power. By framing the “divine Son of God” as a “portrait,” he treats doctrine like a curated image - something composed, edited, and maybe strategically beautified. That single word shifts the reader from worship to skepticism: not “Who was Jesus?” but “Who painted Jesus, and for what audience?”

The sentence is built as a trapdoor. “Is it possible” performs a kind of rhetorical politeness, but the range he offers (“exaggeration” to “complete fabrication”) quietly narrows the acceptable outcomes. Even the mild option concedes inflation; the harsh option implies a deliberate myth-making project. Either way, the divine claim becomes a story problem, not a faith claim.

Subtextually, Clayton is inviting the modern reader to treat early Christianity like any other institution with branding needs. The “original Jesus” is cast as a recoverable figure buried under layers: gospel narration, Pauline interpretation, church politics, translation choices, centuries of devotional art. That’s not accidental; it mirrors how contemporary audiences are trained to read media - behind the image, find the incentives.

Context matters because this is the classic historical-Jesus pressure point: the gap between a first-century Jewish teacher and the cosmic Christ of creeds. Clayton’s intent isn’t merely to shock believers; it’s to legitimize doubt as a rational posture. The question is less about answering and more about granting permission to reopen a case many traditions declare closed.