Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.

[dangerdan]

Ok, you're probably wondering what Santa has to do with Christianity? bear with me here....

The topic of Santa was brought up in the thread "Everyone should be agnostic?, and with it brought some interesting topics to do with belief systems, well worthy of a new thread.

Now why is this in a Christianity forum? I think it has some rich insights into Christian epistemology - why they believe in some things and not others. I was pondering putting this in the philosophy sub-forum, but I feel it’s more relating to pure Christian thought (though if moderators feel otherwise then that's ok).

So, let the debate begin! I do not intend the question to be demeaning or disrespectful, but merely a candid enquiry. So with no further ado - Do Christians believe in Santa? If not, why not.

[LillSnopp]

St Nicholas, Santa Claus, get it, damn, its sooo bvious. Its like miss that Clark Kent is Superman.

Does old saints sure knew how to make an acronym....

[trencacloscas]

I posed the question earlier, do you believe the likes of Caeser, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. existed?

Historical proofs? Sure. Let's follow some criteria here. Let's take Caesar, for instance... a) Contemporary witnesses: about a dozen of the most influential Roman writers b) Works: we have a complete history of his life as a general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Caesar's own account of his war, De Bello Gallico, still survives.
c) Contemporary artifacts that confirm his life and death, as do his successors: coins with his effigy, inscriptions celebrating his deeds, even a portrait of him found near Tusculum and carved during Caesar's own lifetime. d) Miscellaneous: Caesar established a style of government and a calendar which endured for centuries. Other consequences of his intervention available....

[foshizzle]

Historical proofs? Sure. Let's follow some criteria here. Let's take Caesar, for instance... a) Contemporary witnesses: about a dozen of the most influential Roman writers

Thallus, Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapoion and the Jewish rabbis at the time wrote about Jesus Christ.

b) Works: we have a complete history of his life as a general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Caesar's own account of his war, De Bello Gallico, still survives.

The first record of the existance of Juilius Caeser was written over /1000/ years after his death. Jesus Christ had accounts dated within 24 years.

The Jewish writers of the Talmund were most definately not friends, and they also wrote about him.

c) Contemporary artifacts that confirm his life and death, as do his successors: coins with his effigy, inscriptions celebrating his deeds, even a portrait of him found near Tusculum and carved during Caesar's own lifetime.

There's no real reason for Jesus to be inscribed onto coins (as he wasn't a political leader). Also:
1 - Jesus wasn't in a position of public importance. He wasn't a kig, not a religious leader, he wasn't a general. Relative to Rome, Jesus came from a small, unimportant town, was an unimportant carpenter, and he had a short, 3 year ministry. Rome hardly knew of him, until testimony of eyewitnesses later threatened their political and religous stability.

2 - The records of his teachings survived the most intensive eradication effort of all time. Exponentially growing in numbers, Christian witnesses were killed, written records were burned, and anyone professing the belief was martyred/killed. In 303 AD, an edict was issued to destoryr /all/ the world's Bibles. People found with them were killed.

3 - There was no printing press, and the world population was tiny. The number of surviving manuscripsts is staggering considering they were all hand copied by a infinitly small population base (compared to today). Only 138 million people existed at the time, with no automatic duplication. What would motivate such extensive work?

What makes the case even more amazing as that his disciples (all but 1) died horrible deaths of martytrs. I doubt anyone would be willing to die (much less 11) to advance an idea that they know isn't true.
James was stoned, Peter was crucified upside-down, Paul was beheaded, Thaddaeus was killed with arrows, Matthew and James (of Zebedee) had deaths by sword, and the rest were crucified.

More, Paul was a leading killer of Christians, but he gave up wealth, power and comfort upon seeing the ressurected Christ, then proceeded to write most of the New Testament.

All of these reasons make the survival of his teachings an amazing feat.

d) Miscellaneous: Caesar established a style of government and a calendar which endured for centuries. Other consequences of his intervention available....

Jesus Christ established a religion that endured an erradication attempt unlike any other, threatening followers with death. This has lasted over 2,000 years.


Anything else?

[trencacloscas]

Thallus, Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapoion and the Jewish rabbis at the time wrote about Jesus Christ.

Sorry, all false. Medieval interpolations, fabrications and not contemporaries don't count. Josephus just could make the trick, but... proven forgery: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

The first record of the existance of Juilius Caeser was written over /1000/ years after his death.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The Jewish writers of the Talmund were most definately not friends, and they also wrote about him.

Really? Exact passages and sources, please.


The rest is pure speculation, no evidence.

[foshizzle]

It's the general consensus of Jewish, Christian and secular scholars alike that the passage as a whole is authentic, though many think there /are/ interpolations.

This means that some early Christian writers inserted phrases that Josephus wouldn't have written. For instance, the first line states "At this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." That's not a normally used phrase by Christians, so it seems authentic for Josephus; however, the next phrase says "if one indeed should call him a man". This implies that Jesus was more than human, which would seem to be an interpolation.

It goes on to say "he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin." The vocabulary he uses there he uses accordingly elsewhere in his works. After that, however, follows "He was the Messiah." Josephus says later in his reference to James that Jesus was /called/ the Christ. It's unlikely that he would consider Jesus to be the Messiah here, and say he's /called/ the Messiah later.

The next passage talks of his trials and crucifixion and that fact that his followers still loved him. This is unexceptional, and generally considered authentic.

The reason he only speaks of Jesus in these two areas (and actually writes /more/ about John the Baptist), is because he was more interested in the political matters, and the struggles against Rome. John the Baptist was a much greater political threat than Jesus. (Jesus didn't even oppose taxes being payed to this government that commited horrible atrocities against the Christians).
There were also /other/ passage by Josephus in which he was mentioned...
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…”

From what Josephus writes, he corroborates the fact that Jesus was the martyed leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who established a wide and lasting following, even after being crucified under Pilate due to the instigation of some Jewish leaders.


And there is no real dispute with the rest. Where did you find information that called them "all false"?

Sorry, all false. Medieval interpolations, fabrications and not contemporaries don't count. Josephus just could make the trick, but... proven forgery: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

It's not possible to "prove" that it's a forgery, and most scholars have made the conclusions that i just mentioned above. Did you take this one page and assume it "proved" every testimony of Christ's existance as false?

Sad...

Really? Exact passages and sources, please.


The rest is pure speculation, no evidence.

"Jesus was a bastard born of adultery." (Yebamoth 49b, p.324).
"Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man." (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725).
"Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress". (Shabbath 104b, p.504).

And, because /you/ have not taken the time to look into what I've said, you call it pure speculation?

It almost seems pointless to continue posting here if all you're going to do is link to Geocities, and claim falsities with no proof.

[trencacloscas]

Pal, it's not my problem if you refuse evidence of forgery. Christians had all the time, power, motives and means in the world to forge testimonies since the beginning. Of course, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, only that there is no solid proof of it.

By the way, the Talmud quotes are forged too. This anti-semitic propaganda was very common among Christians, that persecuted Jews systematically since St. Cyril, s.V. Please take a look: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/


Also this straight-to-the-point text by Kenneth Humphries:

Did the Rabbis Know Jesus?
In a most ironic twist, Christian apologists sometimes bring forward an ancient anti-Jesus slur, circulated by the rabbis, as "evidence" that their godman existed.
Yet the earliest rabbinic writings – for example, the Mishnah ("study") (of which the Talmuds are later commentaries) – make no reference to a "Jesus" character at all.
In the vast corpus of material the closest we get is Mishnah Yevamot 4.13 which has a very oblique reference to a 'peloni' (rabbinic Hebrew for 'so and so') but nothing more:
"Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so is a bastard son of a married woman."
The reference could have been to anyone. Though difficult to date the verse could well be a rabbinic counter-stoke to Matthew's manufacture of a genealogy for JC early in the 2nd century.
A later, 2nd or 3rd century, rabbinical reference is to a magician who had led some Jews into apostasy. This is in an addendum to the Mishnah – 'Baraitha Sanhedrin 43a' – which records the hanging of a 'Yeshu' on the eve of Passover for sorcery. It also adds that he had 5 disciples – Mattai, Naqai, Netzer, Buni and Todah – not exactly the familiar names!
The 3rd century Tosefta (another supplementary commentary on the Oral Law, even later than the Mishnah) tells of an attempt to invoke the name of 'Yeshu ben Pandira' to cure a rabbi of a snake bite (Chullin 2:23).
Later still, the references to Yeshu get more colourful.
Both Talmuds are 'late' constructions: the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the early 5th century AD and the Talmud of Babylon was compiled during the 6th century. By this date the only source of information about Jesus available to the rabbis was the Christians themselves! But far from confirming anything found in the gospels the rabbinic authors appear to have confounded at least two Jesuses – a 1st century BC Yeshu ben Pandira and 2nd century AD Yeshu ben Strada.
According to Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, JC is apparently the son of an adulterous hairdresser ('Miriam Megaddela') and is executed in Lud. Talmud Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, has the magician Jesus worshipping a brick during the 1st century BC reign of John Hyrcanus.
If the 3rd century Church Father Origen is to believed (Contra Celsum 1.28) Celsus, the pagan opponent of Christianity, writing in the late 2nd century, had heard from Jewish sources the scandalous rumour that the Christian hero was the result of an illicit affair between Miriam, a young Jewess, and a Roman trooper called 'Pantheras.' The woman had been driven off by her husband when he discovered she had got herself pregnant by a soldier of the occupying power.
One could hardly conceive of a more disreputable pedigree for a would-be Jewish Messiah!
Which of course reveals the whole point of the slur: to damn the iconic figure held high by apostate Jews who, together with their gentile converts, now formed the rival Christians. In comparison, denying that the hero figure had existed would have appeared weak and conveyed none of the scurrilous insult of a bastardised racial impurity. The rabbis responded to a fable with a lie of their own.
The rumour probably originated among the rabbis shortly after the Christians invented their nativity story, in the late 130s.

[foshizzle]

Do you have reasons not to believe Thallus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar-Serapoion?

[LillSnopp]

Do you have reasons not to believe Thallus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Hadrian, Suetonius, Phlegon, Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar-Serapoion?

I actually was sitting here passive waiting for you to answer him. Could i be as bold to ask you to do this instead of giving questions. Respect is where respect serves, and you should show him the respect he shows you.l

[foshizzle]

Did i say something disrespectful?

I simply asked for a reason not to believe the numerous other sources (though most scholars accept even the ones you "proved" as forgery).

I'm not really sure what you meant by that lost post. Could you reword it?

[LillSnopp]

Did i say something disrespectful?

I simply asked for a reason not to believe the numerous other sources (though most scholars accept even the ones you "proved" as forgery).

I'm not really sure what you meant by that lost post. Could you reword it?

I apologize for involving myself in your discussion, and i hope you pardon my interruption:

You did not say anything disrespectful foshizzle, but i consider your way of debating with trencacloscas is disrespectful. He gives you both elaborated and thoughtful answers. And you give short pointless rebuttals to this. If you are not able to answer him, clearly, he knows better, and you should listen to him.

Trencacloscas said:

Sorry, all false. Medieval interpolations, fabrications and not contemporaries don't count. Josephus just could make the trick, but... proven forgery: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

Your answer for this was:

It's not possible to "prove" that it's a forgery, and most scholars have made the conclusions that i just mentioned above. Did you take this one page and assume it "proved" every testimony of Christ's existance as false?

Sad...

You simply claim here that it is not possible to prove a forgery. And then you insult him (in my eyes).

Trencacloscas said:

The rest is pure speculation, no evidence.

Your answer:

And, because /you/ have not taken the time to look into what I've said, you call it pure speculation?

You claim that he did not look into what you said, yet, he said its pure speculation. You can only assume he did this, else he would not answer you in this manner. If Trencacloscas did lie is not a manner of concern, as you would not know, but what we do know, is that you once again, insult him with this comment.

You said:

The first record of the existance of Juilius Caeser was written over /1000/ years after his death.

Trencacloscas answer for this was:

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Clearly Trencacloscas is somewhat confused here. As you rebuted his statement about Julius Caesar, and stated he was not written about until 1000 years after his death. Should you not give any evidence for this claim?


In any case, that was all for now, i presume i will now get insulted instead.