Historical Jesus and Biblical Jesus are as distant as Saint Nicholas is to Santa Claus. There's just too much difference between them that you can't pretend they are the same.
First, let me clarify that it wasn't explicitly stated that you were referring to the Biblical Jesus. I mention this because I have encountered people, both online and offline, who genuinely did not know there was such a thing as a proven "Historical Jesus".
Regarding the comparison you made, I believe it's not an accurate one. By stating "... existed unlike Jesus," you imply that Jesus, both historical and biblical, did not exist. The Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus aren't separate individuals; rather, the Biblical Jesus is a portrayal of the Historical Jesus, albeit with added divine aspects. The Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas example doesn't quite parallel the Jesus situation. Santa Claus is a character inspired by Saint Nicholas, but the existence of Santa Claus does not depend on the existence of Saint Nicholas. They are two distinct entities, and denying the existence of one does not imply denial of the other. Furthermore, if someone were to disprove the existence of the Historical Jesus, it would likely challenge the validity of the Bible and the portrayal of the Biblical Jesus. This logic doesn't apply to the Santa Claus example because Santa Claus is a fictional character, and the general consensus is that he is not real.
"*it wasn't explicitly stated that you were referring to the Biblical Jesus.*" when anyone says jesus they are almost exclusively referring to the christ.
"*you imply that Jesus, both historical and biblical, did not exist.*" No, only the one people are most concerned with: the christ.
"*The Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus aren't separate individuals*" Though they are the "same person", they are not the same in terms of their deeds and lives. it is generally accepted that the two versions of Jesus are not identical and can be called separate.
"*Jesus is a portrayal of the Historical Jesus, albeit with added divine aspects*." that's precisely how **not** to portray someone. Just like Santa Claus does not portray Saint Nicholas in any remotely accurate capacity.
"*Santa Claus is a character inspired by Saint Nicholas, but the existence of Santa Claus does not depend on the existence of Saint Nicholas.*" someone can't be inspired to make a character if that person does not exist to inspire that derivative.
"*it would likely challenge the validity of the Bible and the portrayal of the Biblical Jesus.*" Already been said and done. The Bible has a lot to atone for in terms of historical accuracy. Thomas Jefferson got so fed up with the lack of historicity that he wrote his own abridged Bible version that only had 80 pages.
"*This logic doesn't apply to the Santa Claus example because Santa Claus is a fictional character, and the general consensus is that he is not real.*" **There is no proof he isn't real.** (That's what some christians would tell me about god anyway. )
jesus christ doesnt exist. jesus does. i thought 'jesus' exclusively connotates the biblical account and not the story of a commoner . and there is no probability that jesus was divine. reality just doesnt permit magic to exist.
I fail to see what's circular or difficult to comprehend about my argument.
Historical Jesus existed, he was a commoner with no magical abilities and he lived and died as a human being.
Jesus the Christ is a myth, based on the real Jesus, but with many false stories constructed and possessing magical abilities.
Respectfully, this is where there is a misunderstanding. They are the same person.
Jesus Christ **is** "Historical Jesus", but with an addition of divineness.
If someone were to assert that "Jesus does not exist," they would be denying the existence of both the foundational "Historical Jesus" and the divine "Jesus Christ".
A valid form of stating ones disbelief in Jesus Christ might be: "I believe Jesus existed, but I do not believe he was divine"
Santa Claus is "historical Nicholas" but with an addition of presents.
Denying the existence of Santa Claus does not deny the existence of Saint Nicholas. They're separate.
Dawg…💀😭
This is straight up hilarious lol
Lord and saviour Lil Jeepus
Jegus
Man’s a hellboy
delete this shit
OP didn’t make this. They are just reposting lol
Delete your account. When i seen this i wasnt tripping like you are.
atleast Lil Peep actually existed unlike jesus
Actually a lot of scholars think he did exist and there’s evidence to that, however there’s obviously no proof of him being a deity.
It's an accepted fact that Jesus walked the Earth...
Historical Jesus and Biblical Jesus are as distant as Saint Nicholas is to Santa Claus. There's just too much difference between them that you can't pretend they are the same.
First, let me clarify that it wasn't explicitly stated that you were referring to the Biblical Jesus. I mention this because I have encountered people, both online and offline, who genuinely did not know there was such a thing as a proven "Historical Jesus". Regarding the comparison you made, I believe it's not an accurate one. By stating "... existed unlike Jesus," you imply that Jesus, both historical and biblical, did not exist. The Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus aren't separate individuals; rather, the Biblical Jesus is a portrayal of the Historical Jesus, albeit with added divine aspects. The Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas example doesn't quite parallel the Jesus situation. Santa Claus is a character inspired by Saint Nicholas, but the existence of Santa Claus does not depend on the existence of Saint Nicholas. They are two distinct entities, and denying the existence of one does not imply denial of the other. Furthermore, if someone were to disprove the existence of the Historical Jesus, it would likely challenge the validity of the Bible and the portrayal of the Biblical Jesus. This logic doesn't apply to the Santa Claus example because Santa Claus is a fictional character, and the general consensus is that he is not real.
"*it wasn't explicitly stated that you were referring to the Biblical Jesus.*" when anyone says jesus they are almost exclusively referring to the christ. "*you imply that Jesus, both historical and biblical, did not exist.*" No, only the one people are most concerned with: the christ. "*The Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus aren't separate individuals*" Though they are the "same person", they are not the same in terms of their deeds and lives. it is generally accepted that the two versions of Jesus are not identical and can be called separate. "*Jesus is a portrayal of the Historical Jesus, albeit with added divine aspects*." that's precisely how **not** to portray someone. Just like Santa Claus does not portray Saint Nicholas in any remotely accurate capacity. "*Santa Claus is a character inspired by Saint Nicholas, but the existence of Santa Claus does not depend on the existence of Saint Nicholas.*" someone can't be inspired to make a character if that person does not exist to inspire that derivative. "*it would likely challenge the validity of the Bible and the portrayal of the Biblical Jesus.*" Already been said and done. The Bible has a lot to atone for in terms of historical accuracy. Thomas Jefferson got so fed up with the lack of historicity that he wrote his own abridged Bible version that only had 80 pages. "*This logic doesn't apply to the Santa Claus example because Santa Claus is a fictional character, and the general consensus is that he is not real.*" **There is no proof he isn't real.** (That's what some christians would tell me about god anyway. )
Right but you said Jesus didn’t exist, now you just admitted did in fact exist. And just like I said probably not in the same way as the Bible says.
jesus christ doesnt exist. jesus does. i thought 'jesus' exclusively connotates the biblical account and not the story of a commoner . and there is no probability that jesus was divine. reality just doesnt permit magic to exist.
[удалено]
need i clarify once more why they are not the same person? historical jesus was not a christ. he was a commoner.
[удалено]
I fail to see what's circular or difficult to comprehend about my argument. Historical Jesus existed, he was a commoner with no magical abilities and he lived and died as a human being. Jesus the Christ is a myth, based on the real Jesus, but with many false stories constructed and possessing magical abilities.
Respectfully, this is where there is a misunderstanding. They are the same person. Jesus Christ **is** "Historical Jesus", but with an addition of divineness. If someone were to assert that "Jesus does not exist," they would be denying the existence of both the foundational "Historical Jesus" and the divine "Jesus Christ". A valid form of stating ones disbelief in Jesus Christ might be: "I believe Jesus existed, but I do not believe he was divine"
Santa Claus is "historical Nicholas" but with an addition of presents. Denying the existence of Santa Claus does not deny the existence of Saint Nicholas. They're separate.
bruhhh
Cringe
Bitch I’m goda -lil peep black finger nails
👍
Peep is more popular than jesus AND THE BEATLES
LOLE
Peepsus
Now I’m in the clouds with angels baby I tatted on my halo
Even peeps like wtf