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.

[AlAyeti]

Trenc,

Trying to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ referenced is not a completely accurate nor solid assertion. The Talmud mentions Mary. Also Panthera the Roman soldier who raped her, was a story still carrying weight to this day. Jesu, an insulting way of writing Jesus is also still popular among Christian-bashers.

The Christians were called "atheists" because they would not do acts of worship to the "Gods" of the Romans.

Please search "Perpetua" and see what she wrote about while awaiting her execution in the Circus for becoming a Christian convert.

It's better to attack the Jesus story like the Jesus Seminar heretics do.

[Ranmoth]

Okay, why has this thread expanded for so long? And why are we talking about Perpetua? The topic is Santa, gosh-garnit. And the first step to constructing an argument around Santa is to define Santa. Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to define him by the popular example of the jolly red guy who rides in the sleigh(w/ or w/o Rudolph) delivering presents to good girls and boys and yadda yadda yadda. Now, since I've stopped typing so fast, I can stop abbreviating so much.

Moving on(assuming you people know what my definition means, c'mon, everyone here is smart), I'd like to say that just being a Christian does not necessarily make one a believer in Santa(and by Christian I'm encompassing most forms of them, on several different levels of comprehention and "devout-ness"). There is nothing in the Gospels, the New Testament, Old Testament Law, or anywhere in the Bible or any other apocrypha, etc. that directly mentions and/or relates to in any way the Santa I have described. None. Zip. Every person who has been properly educated in their Santa history, including Christians, should at least believe in St. Nicholaus and his works, and that the Santa story is based off them, not what actually happened.

Then, there are the physics behind Santa himself. If he was traveling fast enough so that during hours when the sun had set surrounding 12:00 AM December 25th to deliver presents to every child in the world, he would be going so fast that poor little Santa, along with his sleigh, presents, and Rudolph's shiny little nose(along with the rest of him) would burn up. Heck, he wouldn't even be going that fast, since reindeer just don't fly, so it doesn't matter how many children you assume he visits. Also, it would be impossible for Santa to know what the kids wanted, considering that postal flights to the North Pole containing children's letters to him do not occur by any agency(or, if any "show" flights ever occur in the future, they do not account for the decades of non-transport). Heck, Santa letters are incinerated at the post office.

Speaking of burning, it gets one to thinking that if there were burning Santa peices raining down every year, or if Santa somehow survived and made his rounds, there would be evidence such as cinders, reindeer droppings, accidentally dropped articles such as bells and presents, audio/visual recordings, even kidnapped Santa himself. Is there? Absolutely no such evidence exists that is validatable beyond most reasonable doubts(I say "most" because there are certain questions which could apply to anything and make a reasonable doubt; you people should know what I speak of). More evidence exists of UFO's, and we seem to know more less about them than no-show Santa.

But, just to get rid of one more reasonable doubt, if we decide to assume that Santa is a perfect item manager, that his reindeer are perfectly trained to "hold it," that he utilizes incredible scientific marvels to make possible his ventures, and that no one, for all these years, has simply "happened" to see/hear him, then it raises questions about said scientific marvels. Disregarding the inherent scientific brilliance Santa would have to posess in order to have invented them centuries ago, we are left with the simple question of how the heck they would run.

Think about it: they would require massive amounts of energy to run, most certainly more than could be stored in the sleigh. To make this energy, he would have to have some sort of fuel. Fossil fuels, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and geothermal power are out of the question, since scientists would undoubtably realize the sharp drain in resources in each resulting from the application of said marvels, and the rate of energy production needed would be so fast that most of those wouldn't work anyway, unless they were stored up gradually over the course of the "off-season." That makes things very difficult for Santa to keep his operations running. If he decided to use more exotic forms of energy production, that would just make things insanely complicated and so on, and it begs another question: Why? Why would Santa go through all this trouble just to give out some presents on his seemingly arbitrary date? Why doesn't he use his brilliant mind for other purposes? What's his incentive? Wouldn't it be easier just to give out presents through charities or whatever?

And another thing, where would he get the presents themselves? Do the elves make them? A lot of presents seem to be exact duplicates of trademarked, copyrighted, patented, or otherwise restricted material, so is Santa violating international law? Or does he steal them? Wouldn't the companies notice that many stolen goods? Wouldn't scientists notice that steep of a decline in toy making resources if Santa does, in fact, manufacture his own toys? The list goes on and on.

However, this thread is not about whether or not Santa exists, it's about whether or not Christians believe he exists. As I have already stated, the Santa mythos is widely regarded by Christians and non-Christians alike(at least, the adult ones. ) as a children's story based off the life of St. Nicholaus, and handed down, generation to generation. Popular media evidences this, as well as every social circle I have ever come in contact with after learning that Santa wasn't real. All the members of said circles can tell similar stories, just about ad infinitum, and since most of my friends are Christians, it seems that if one assumes that, say, Tulsans are average, most Christians don't believe in Santa. Now, that's not a proof in itself, but it does provide some intriguing evidence. Ask around among the Christians in your communty(assuming there are any), and see what they have to say.

But, you may ask, what defines a Christian? After all, that definition is just as important to the main question as the definition of Santa. Should it be considered an average Christian, who doesn't follow all of Jesus's instructions to the T, does not yet comprehend the full philosophical and religious meaning of his teachings, but at least tries his/her best, at least most of the time? If so, then assuming that my statistical analysis is valid(that's why I suggested doing your own), the answer is no. However, if the definition of a Christian in this case is a "perfect" Christian, which is basically impossible to acheive in real life but makes for a nice philosophical debate centre, then it makes the discussion a lot tougher. I have already talked about this a little in the second paragraph, but I'm already tired of typing this, and this entry is long as it is, so I'll leave that discussion to the rest of you, at least for now. Thank you for your time.

[trencacloscas]

Trying to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ referenced is not a completely accurate nor solid assertion. The Talmud mentions Mary. Also Panthera the Roman soldier who raped her, was a story still carrying weight to this day. Jesu, an insulting way of writing Jesus is also still popular among Christian-bashers.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that that is the same Jesus you are talking about? There are at least twelve Jesuses mentioned in the Talmud. If you accept that Yeshu Ben Pandira is the one, why wouldn't you accept the story about Mary.

And of course, the most important thing, how common are the names Yeshua and Maria for Jews? Coincidences can be casual.

[perplexed101]

The DaVinci Code repeats the old claim, by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others, that no one believed in the Divinity of Christ in the early Church, but that this idea was invented and promulgated by the emperor Constantine who gained control of the Roman Empire in 312 AD. This historical claim in absolute nonsense. The following texts from Christian writers who lived between New Testament times and the reign of Constantine make abundantly clear that belief in Christ's divinity and equality with God the Father is an indisputable part of the Christian tradition from the beginning. These quotes are by no means exhaustive – they are just a very limited selection. Most or all of the direct quotes below come from the collection edited by Cyril Richardson entitled Early Christian Fathers (NY: Macmillan, 1970), abbreviated here as ECF.

How's this tren:

I.Selected Ante-Nicene Patristic witnesses to Christ's Divinity

A.Ignatius of Antioch, on the Divinity of Christ, calls Jesus God 16x in 7 letters (ca. 110 AD)

1.“Jesus Christ our God” Eph inscr, Eph 15:3, Eph 18:2, Tral 7, Ro inscr 2x, Ro 3:3, Smyr 10:1.

2.He speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Eph 1:1

3.He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Eph 7:2

4.In Jesus “God was revealing himself as a man” Eph 19:3



B.Epistle to Diognetus (ca. 125 AD) speaking of God the Father, he says:

1.Diognetus 7:2 "he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds" (ca. 125 AD)

2.Diognetus 7:4 “He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men."



C.Melito of Sardis on Christ's Divnity (d. ca. 190) On the Pasch (Peri Pascha).

1.Translation in Lucien Deiss, ed., Springtime of the Liturgy (College­ville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979), 97-110.

2.Peri Pascha was only discovered in 1940 and published in 1960.

3.he says Christ "rises from the dead as God, being by nature both God and man" (p. 100 in Deiss, physei Theos n kai anthropos).

4.he also has an anti-Gnostic insistence on Christ's true humanity.



D.Justin Martyr on the Divinity of Christ (c. 155 AD)

1.says that Christians adore and worship the Son as well as the Father. 1st Apology 6.

2.says Christ, the Word incarnate, is divine 1 Apol 10 & 63



E.Irenaeus on Christ's Divinity (ca. 185) in his work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)

1.Of Jesus he says "He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." AH III.19.2 (Ante Nicene Fathers 1: 449).

2."He, therefore who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared, 'No man knoweth the Father,' but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very [true] man, and that He was very [true] God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself." AH, IV, 6,7 (ANF, 469).




F.Tertullian on the Divinity of Christ (ca. 200)

1.the first use of the Latin word trinitas with reference to God is in Adversus Praxean and De pudicitia. The first to use the term persona in a Trinitarian & christological context asserting in Adv. Praxean 12 that the Logos is distinct from the Father as person and that the HS is the "third person" in the Trinity."

2.Adv. Praxean 27 states that there are two natures, one human and one divine, which are joined in the one person Jesus Christ.

3.In his Apology 21, speaking of the Word, he says, “we have been taught that he proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. . . . That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is make a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature. . . .in His birth God and man united.”

4.In On the Flesh of Christ 5, he asks, “Was not God really crucified?”



G.Clement of Alexandria on Christ's Divinity (ca. 210 AD)

1 Exhortation to the Heathen, 1: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) ad of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man--that Author of all blessings to us. . . . This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning.”



II. A few selected Trinitarian Texts from Ante-Nicene Fathers

A.Didache (ca. 125 AD) "then baptize in running water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Early Christian Fathers, p. 7)

B.Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 115 AD) exhorts the Christians at Magnesia to stand firm "in faith and love, in Son, Father, and Spirit." (Mag 13)

C. Pope Dionysius to Dionysius of Alexandria, 262 AD. Uses the term Trinity and describes the unity of the three persons to prove that they are not three gods. Neunier-Dupuis, The Christian Faith, #301-303.

D. Origen (ca 230 AD), On First Principles 1.6.2 “For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.”

[trencacloscas]

Trying to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ referenced is not a completely accurate nor solid assertion. The Talmud mentions Mary. Also Panthera the Roman soldier who raped her, was a story still carrying weight to this day. Jesu, an insulting way of writing Jesus is also still popular among Christian-bashers.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that that is the same Jesus you are talking about? There are at least twelve Jesuses mentioned in the Talmud. If you accept that Yeshu Ben Pandira is the one, why wouldn't you accept the story about Mary.

And of course, the most important thing, how common are the names Yeshua and Maria for Jews? Coincidences can be casual.

[perplexed101]

Trying to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ referenced is not a completely accurate nor solid assertion. The Talmud mentions Mary. Also Panthera the Roman soldier who raped her, was a story still carrying weight to this day. Jesu, an insulting way of writing Jesus is also still popular among Christian-bashers.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that that is the same Jesus you are talking about? There are at least twelve Jesuses mentioned in the Talmud. If you accept that Yeshu Ben Pandira is the one, why wouldn't you accept the story about Mary.

And of course, the most important thing, how common are the names Yeshua and Maria for Jews? Coincidences can be casual.

LOL, i just provided the proof you seek, i didnt say you have to like it.

... that evidence may appear cumbersome to your perspective.

[trencacloscas]

LOL, i just provided the proof you seek, i didnt say you have to like it.

Now this is one of your typical bluffs. You answer whatever comes to your mind, no relation with the topic or the conversation held at the moment. Al Ayeti mentioned the Talmud, I asked about the Talmud, but you just mentioned a long list of ante-Nicene testimonies for allegedly prove that early Christians believed Jesus to be God, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and then you jump to affirm that you provided proofs about what?

I'm sorry, but a discussion is based on mutual understanding, and as you are incapable of make yourself clear, I'll rather take otseng's advice and ignore your cumbersome intents to pollute good conversation.

[perplexed101]

LOL, i just provided the proof you seek, i didnt say you have to like it.

Now this is one of your typical bluffs. You answer whatever comes to your mind, no relation with the topic or the conversation held at the moment. Al Ayeti mentioned the Talmud, I asked about the Talmud, but you just mentioned a long list of ante-Nicene testimonies for allegedly prove that early Christians believed Jesus to be God, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and then you jump to affirm that you provided proofs about what?

I'm sorry, but a discussion is based on mutual understanding, and as you are incapable of make yourself clear, I'll rather take otseng's advice and ignore your cumbersome intents to pollute good conversation.

here is something from the talmud:

Insults Against Mary the mother of Jesus

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

the Sanhedrin were the same ones who vehemently wanted Jesus Christ crucfied:

The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other "sins" of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

another lie but still gives evidence of Jesus Christ

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."

thought you said there was no mention of Jesus Christ's life anywhere in the talmud?

Here is Jesus' reply to them:

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Here is some teachings from the talmud:

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows

Here is what a rabbi has to say about the talmud when asked:

summerset: Hi...What is the Talmud? As you can tell, I am not Jewish.

Rabbi Latowicz: Actually, there are many Jews who ask the same question! According to Judaism, the Bible was received from G-d with a commentary... this explanation of the Torah & its laws was preserved orally through the generations. Eventually it was recorded in summary form for the very first time in the 2nd century. This summary (the Mishnah) became a text for study for the Rabbis for Jewish law & tradition.

mishnah summary that comes from the 2nd century... LOL nice clue in regards to the sanhedrin pharisees and sadducees of the 2nd century.

the tanach or hebrew old testament excludes the mishnah that was added in during the 2nd century... for i have it LOL and its not in there.

[Corvus]

LOL, i just provided the proof you seek, i didnt say you have to like it.

Now this is one of your typical bluffs. You answer whatever comes to your mind, no relation with the topic or the conversation held at the moment. Al Ayeti mentioned the Talmud, I asked about the Talmud, but you just mentioned a long list of ante-Nicene testimonies for allegedly prove that early Christians believed Jesus to be God, which has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and then you jump to affirm that you provided proofs about what?

I'm sorry, but a discussion is based on mutual understanding, and as you are incapable of make yourself clear, I'll rather take otseng's advice and ignore your cumbersome intents to pollute good conversation.

here is something from the talmud:

And here is a page refuting what seems to be calculated quote mining to get Christians worked up about Jews. Not being able to read Hebrew, and having no inclination to learn, I can't verify your words or the veracity of these refutations.

[trencacloscas]

Thanks for your intervention, Corvus, it saves a lot of work for me and I got kinda tired of antisemitic bullies who bring this kind of bullshit over and over.

By the way, here's another page: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html