Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[OnceConvinced]

Yes, we do know that for certain. The Bishop Nicholas did exist. Santa was never claimed to be God incarnate/the Son of God.

Many Christians argue that Jesus never did either.

There is no legend where it is claimed that Santa's realm is in the spirit world, unlike Jesus.

Perhaps Santa wanted people to take him more seriously?

Do you have any historical sources to back up the claims that Santa is a spiritual being?

Only stories that have been written on paper. But then that's the same with Jesus.

We don't need historical sources to tell us ever little detail about Santa Claus. We can determine he is supernatural and not a standard human being by the things that it has been recorded that he can do (like travel faster than the speed of light, easily get down chimneys even tiny narrow modern ones, make reindeers fly etc.) If he is not some kind of supernatural spiritual being then how could he do all that stuff?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 319 by Joe1950]

The account of Joe1950 has been deleted (as per request -- and Admin agreement).

Blatant disregard for Forum Rules is not tolerated.

[Claire Evans]

Remember it is an occult based practice.

And the practices of mainstream Christianity are not? What about the ritualistic God-eating?

That is from the Catholic Church, which incorporated paganism into Christianity, which is called transubstantiation. They truly believe that they are eating Jesus. There is no way that other Christians, including the only ones, who believe that is literal.

No, there would have to be case which can be examined to deduce if it is plausible. However, if one can say Santa is a supernatural being then, hypothetically, it could make sense. However, there are no such claims and no premises to go on.

A case that can be examined? What exactly does this mean? On the surface, this statement would exclude Jesus Christ then from being plausible.

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead/

That's what pagan stories say. The gods called the flood in the Sumerian story.

Again, that isn't what is said in the Old Testament. Read the OT and it mentions a singular God, who floods the planet. Continue reading the Bible and we eventually learn this God is the same God as the one talked about in the New.

When the Israelites became monotheistic, they changed the scriptures from "gods" to "God". We see this in the OT itself:

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Genesis 11:7

The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

Has it been proven that there are merely all anecdotes? Many atheists have examined the resurrection story and have come to the conclusion that the resurrection is the only thing that can be deduced based on the facts.

Lee Strobel? A name I've heard before.
" I realized it would take more faith to maintain my atheism than become a Christian."
Wow. That totally smacks of a scientific based investigation /sarcmarc.
I'd really like to know how one investigates the Jesus Christ story, comes to the supposedly empty tomb, and then, based purely on scientific research, comes to the conclusion that Jesus coming back to life and leaving is the BEST answer for why the tomb is empty.

I don't think anyone's claimed that the case of the resurrection is based purely on scientific research.

Here's an excerpt of a review from Amazon UK
. To his credit, I don't think Strobel actually says in this book that he ever set out to present all of the arguments, but rather to show a convincing case in favour of his own newly developed belief. But that's the problem, and why this book should never be recommended to anybody who flat out doesn't believe, because they'll just cling further to those beliefs because of reading it. Strobel interviews some very impressive figures here, but he never presents the other side. He asks them probing questions, where these intellects tear apart their detractors, but he never looks at the arguments of the people with other opinions. Everybody here shares the exact same opinions, and they're presented in such a way to tell us that these are the "only" legitimate opinions, that the opposing arguments are all contradictory and full of holes, and the whole book is framed in such a way to make these theories seem as convincing as possible. Detractors are either atheists, clutching at straws and refusing to accept what's obvious, or they're "liberal" Christians, changing things to suit their agenda. If this was legitimately looking to explore Christianity from a neutral point-of-view, and to show the facts and let the reader make up their own minds, it would have allowed for some of the detractors who were so brutally torn apart to offer their counter-arguments, and it wouldn't have been written in such a way to convince us of the author's beliefs. As such, any knowledgeable atheist, or "liberal Christian", could easily tear this apart and ridicule it... and they do exactly that. Just type "The Case for Christ rebuttal" into Google and you'll be presented with countless examples.

We should start a new thread on "The Case for Christ rebuttal". PM or thread?

Why would an atheist detract? Why would they want to believe what they perceived formally as a fairy tale?

Like I said, if you want to believe that Jesus is the son of God, then you'll accept every word in here.

No, I don't accept everything at face value.

If, however, you genuinely want to learn and understand, then I would highly recommend that you read this book, take notes, and compare it side-by-side with some of the excellent rebuttal websites. Of course, those sites are trying to make Strobel look just as silly as his interviewees tried to make their detractors look, so exercise caution and use your own judgement and common sense. Alternatively, if you're already convinced that Jesus isn't the son of God, you might want to read this because it's about as entertaining and readable an insight into the beliefs and arguments of Christian apologists as you're likely to find. Me? I learnt a lot from reading this and comparing Strobel's words to those of his online adversaries. For one thing, I now feel pretty confident that Jesus was actually a historical figure, and that is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt. I've also learnt that Christian beliefs can, indeed, stand up to scrutiny and logic. But it's a shame that many atheists won't get that impression from this book, as its own biases serve to de-legitimise it.
When I read other reviews, I hear that Strobel doesn't talk to a single scholar who isn't an evangelical Christian. So...he's clearly got a bias.
What about this review?
"I read this as an atheist keen to find out what the case for christ was and the historicity of christ

The author only interviewed christian apologists (with long lists of credentials) and there is no balance or genuine attempt to investigate, to the author it's a done deal.

The case itself is entirely based on the authority of the bible, if you're sceptical of the bible, there is no case for Christ."

Or this one?
"The Case For Christ is a biased, one-sided presentation by a Christian minister. Strobel only interviewed believing Christian experts; most were professors at seminaries and schools of theology and two were also pastors. It is not surprising they believe in the accuracy of the Gospels and the divinity of Jesus. He interviewed no scholars with opposing views like Sanders, Mack, or Fredriksen. Although Strobel raised issues and problems he readily accepted any explanation given. An analogy would be a court trial where only one attorney presents his case and calls only his expert witnesses to the stand. How could a jury reach a fair and truthful verdict under these circumstances?

Wow...after all that, it looks like Lee Strobel is not someone I should be reading. An atheist journalist with a law background...who writes a book that is supposedly about an honest investigation into Jesus's resurrection that is VERY one sided?

Okay, Lee Strobel was a bad example because he could have wanted to believe it for his wife's sake.

As for the second thing you link to...

This theme"of love as sacrifice for true good"struck me. The Cross no longer seemed a grotesque symbol of divine sadism, but a remarkable act of love. And Christianity began to look less strangely mythical and more cosmically beautiful. At the same time, I had begun to read through the Bible and was confronted by my sin. I was painfully arrogant and prone to fits of rage. I was unforgiving and unwaveringly selfish. I passed sexual boundaries that Id promised I wouldnt. The fact that I had failed to adhere to my own ethical standards filled me with deep regret. Yet I could do nothing to right these wrongs. The Cross no longer looked merely like a symbol of love, but like the answer to an incurable needbut beauty and need do not make something true. I longed for the Bible to be true, but the intellectual evidence was still insufficient.

(emphasis mine)
Yeah. That's all I need to strike this person off my list. I cannot and will not trust what this person writes about Christianity because they admit to an emotional need for it to be true.
This then taints any and all research they conduct.

Do you honestly have any idea of how to conduct investigations?

What about Simon Greenleaf? He was chief founder of Harvard Law School and the author of the renowned legal work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. He started off with the position that the resurrection story was inane. Yet it was because he was challenged by his students that he set forth to debunk the resurrection story. He started off with confirmation bias, obviously. Yet he still overcame that bias to come to the conclusion that the resurrection was true.


CS Lewis is another example.

Simon Greenleaf knows how to conduct investigations.

So I ask you this question again: Can you honestly say that non believers of Santa Claus could examine the story and come to believe it?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 305 by Claire Evans]

What's more likely, that people are superstitious and gullible, or that real supernatural monsters exist?

It depends on one's outlook. If one acknowledges the supernatural as true, especially observing it themselves, then "supernatural monsters" will be a feasible explanation. To those who dismiss the supernatural as impossible and blatantly not true, then gullibility and superstition will be more likely. It's subjective.

First of all, there are those who meditate to specifically summon up their spirit guide.

Some people call their spirit guide the HOLY SPIRIT.

No, they are not the same:

We find the Holy Spirit through prayer, while spirit guides are contacted in dangerous ways:

Tune in and start to believe. ...
Meditate with crystals. ...
Get out in nature. ...
Ask your spirit guides to reveal themselves. ...
Keep a spirit guide journal. ...
Try "automatic writing." ...
Tap into your third eye.

These are purely occult practices.

There have been known cases of people becoming demonically possessed by practising meditation.

It's very difficult to check out if there were ACTUAL demons involved. People have delusions and hallucinations all the time. Religion and sex are hot topics in psychiatric wards.

It depends on what they do. Levitation is not an hallucination.

Clearly not all become demonically possessed but there is a risk.

There is NO risk if there are NO demons.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there are.

Some people ARE superstitious, you know.
They might believe in all kinds of scary things that go bump in the night.

Yet it is not possible for you to say there aren't. What is construed as evidence for demons can be dismissed as not so by a non believer.

Shape shifting is a good example of demonic possession:

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 324 by Claire Evans]



[center]Science vs superstition[/center]

What's more likely, that people are superstitious and gullible, or that real supernatural monsters exist?

It depends on one's outlook. If one acknowledges the supernatural as true, especially observing it themselves, then "supernatural monsters" will be a feasible explanation.

What do you mean "observing it themselves"?
WHAT are these people "observing" that scientists don't seem to be ABLE to?

We have a lot of ghost stories.. people who say that they see ghosts all the time. Is that what you mean? Something that has NOT been verified at all by science?

More superstition?
These kinds of stories DO make for good horror movies, of course.

But we have great methods to check out ACTUAL phenomena.
Scientists cannot, however, investigate what isn't actually happening.

To those who dismiss the supernatural as impossible and blatantly not true, then gullibility and superstition will be more likely.

I don't dismiss the supernatural.. but where IS it?
Science studies actual phenomena. There is nothing "supernatural" going on here.

This is 2017, after all.
We would know.

It's subjective.

No.
That's a HUGE mistake.

Data is NOT subjective.

When it's raining outside, do you think you wont get wet because you have construed the rain is "dry"? Try the experiment. See how dry you stay in the pouring rain. When it's raining outside a LOT of people seem to be able to get wet. That, my dear, is a scientific experiment. It's not at all "subjective" in any way.

Science is NOT subjective.
If you say that there are supernatural events going on... we would be able to OBSERVE them. That's what scientists are the BEST at.

Just because some people report monsters.. it doesn't actually mean there are monsters.

First of all, there are those who meditate to specifically summon up their spirit guide.

Some people call their spirit guide the HOLY SPIRIT.

No, they are not the same:

OF course not.
You like YOUR brand, so that spirit guide is ok.

This is about branding.
You like your brand, don't you?

The other brands are DEMONIC, aren't they?

Your spirit is a good spirit, their spirit is an evil spirit.
OF COURSE it is....

That's the way some people used to think in Biblical times.
Bigoted and superstitious.

We find the Holy Spirit through prayer, while spirit guides are contacted in dangerous ways:

Tune in and start to believe. ...
Meditate with crystals. ...
Get out in nature. ...
Ask your spirit guides to reveal themselves. ...
Keep a spirit guide journal. ...
Try "automatic writing." ...
Tap into your third eye.

How are these practices in ANY way "dangerous"?
Bruises to their foreheads by tapping the third eye too much?

These are purely occult practices.

You can call them anything that you like.
You have your own practices.. you don't "like" theirs, that's all.

You just don't call YOURS "occult" .. you call prayer something way nicer than THAT, don't you?.

Bigots usually like to "demonize" their opponents ...
You might have heard of the practice.

Whatever you want to call that practice.. it's not NICE.
Have you ever met a new age person or a wiccan?

Not all of them demonize Christians, even THOUGH, Christians used to BURN Wiccans. It was NEVER the other way around.

They used to demonize "occult" people back then... and then just torture and burn them. Because back then, SUPERSTITIONS was endorsed by the Christians a lot more than now.

Bring back the good old witch burning days?
I think NOT.

There have been known cases of people becoming demonically possessed by practising meditation.

It's very difficult to check out if there were ACTUAL demons involved. People have delusions and hallucinations all the time. Religion and sex are hot topics in psychiatric wards.

It depends on what they do. Levitation is not an hallucination.

Do you think there is a whole LOT of levitation going around in psychiatric wards?

There have been NO actual recorded instances of people flying around. What are you talking about?

So, these "levitators" are either LYING to gullible people, or so incredibly gullible themselves as to be delusional. There are videos you can check out of people bouncing up and down pretending to "levitate".. pathetic delusion.

We KNOW that people can be delusional, and we don't HAVE the world news event of people flying all over the place. Nobody floating around the Walmart, my dear.

This is 2017.
What are you TALKING about?

Can you even IMAGINE how "viral" these videos of ACTUAL levitation would be?
Almost EVERYONE has a video camera at Walmart these days.

To even THINK for a minute that "levitation" actually happens in OUR day without us ALL knowing about it? Preposterous.

Think again.

Clearly not all become demonically possessed but there is a risk.

There is NO risk if there are NO demons.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there are.

Some people ARE superstitious, you know.
They might believe in all kinds of scary things that go bump in the night.

Yet it is not possible for you to say there aren't.

SO WHAT?


1. You HAVE NOT even tried to offer evidence for your claim.

2. It's not possible for me to say that Santa isn't at the North Pole in a magical way. It's not possible for me to say that Vishnu isn't the one true god. It's not possible for me to say that you aren't an alien robot from the future masquerading as a fundamentalist Christian in order to make a xeno-sociological study of the planet you want to invade in a million years from now.

3. The argument "you can't prove that the supernatural DOESN'T exist " is ridiculous. It sure is NOT any kind of evidence for your claim AT ALL.

What is construed as evidence for demons can be dismissed as not so by a non believer.

"CONSTRUED as evidence?"

That statement would be laughed out of court.
Your "subjective" analysis is NOT acceptable as evidence for supernatural boogeymen.

Shape shifting is a good example of demonic possession:

You believe in shape-shifters?

This is starting to sound like an episode of "Supernatural", where ALL manner of scary creepy monsters are real. But that's a TV show, so those monsters are NOT real.

Sorry... but we would know if there was all kinds of supernatural beings walking around.

We don't.
There's a reason why we don't.

Not everyone in 2017 are so incredibly superstitious.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 323 by Claire Evans]

That is from the Catholic Church, which incorporated paganism into Christianity, which is called transubstantiation. They truly believe that they are eating Jesus. There is no way that other Christians, including the only ones, who believe that is literal.

Not just the Catholic Church. While it is true that the RCC teaches that it is the literal body of Christ that is being eaten, that the bread literally transforms into the body, other denominations teach that it is the body of Jesus Christ, who may or may not be God (depending on denomination), and that the bread is the body in some sort of metaphorical sense.

I say

A case that can be examined? What exactly does this mean? On the surface, this statement would exclude Jesus Christ then from being plausible.

You reply

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead/

So I see a summary of what looks to be a standard Christian belief...

I want to comment on this excerpt from the link
So could this have been simply a story that grew over time, or is it based upon solid evidence? The answer to this question is foundational to Christianity. For if Jesus did rise from the dead, it would validate everything he said about himself, about the meaning of life, and about our destiny after death.
The difference between you and I is that I am a careful man when it comes to evaluating claims. I want EACH AND EVERY claim to be accounted for. So what I say to the above in red is that even if it was proven somehow to me that Jesus did return from death...how does this then validate what you believe happens to US after we die?
For all we know...Jesus lied about what happens after death. For all we know, the afterlife is a place of unimaginable horror for all, even Jesus, who managed to come back (somehow) and in order to soothe the worries of his compatriots, he lied about it.
(I am not suggesting that I actually believe the above, nor am I putting it forth seriously, just as a hypothetical).
Basically, what I've seen yourself and other Christians do plenty of times is say that with Jesus's resurrection supposedly being proved, this somehow validates any and all subsequent claims.
I don't do that. If the resurrection were to be proven to me (somehow), I would say "Okay, the resurrection has been proven. Now...what can you give me to suggest that after I myself die, as a believer in Jesus, that I will most definitely be going to heaven?"

When the Israelites became monotheistic, they changed the scriptures from "gods" to "God". We see this in the OT itself:

Not in the Noah's Flood story, is what I meant. In the Noah's Flood story, Genesis 6 to 9, only a singular God is mentioned.

I don't think anyone's claimed that the case of the resurrection is based purely on scientific research.

In which case, anything you might bring to the table thinking it might convince me of the resurrection quite simply will not work. If I can't examine it, I won't believe it.

We should start a new thread on "The Case for Christ rebuttal". PM or thread?

No thanks. Going from the reviews (at least two of which that I quoted were from Christians), the book does not set out to do what Strobel said he'd do. He's supposed to be an atheist journalist, with a law background (at least at first). It's supposed to be an honest examination of the case, in a legal sense, for Christ...and yet, as one of the reviews I quoted says, this is not an honest case. It would be akin to a case where only one side of the proceedings (whether defense or prosecution) is allowed to make an argument, allowed to call witnesses and not only that, speaks FOR the other side, instead of allowing the other side to speak for themselves.

Why would an atheist detract? Why would they want to believe what they perceived formally as a fairy tale?

As an atheist skeptical agnostic (what a mouthful)...I'd believe if I could be presented with the evidence.

Like I said, if you want to believe that Jesus is the son of God, then you'll accept every word in here.

No, I don't accept everything at face value.

That part in red is from one of the reviews I copied and pasted. Apologies if I didn't make it clear, I could have done a better job at showing which part of the text in my last comment was from the review (and linked to it).

Okay, Lee Strobel was a bad example because he could have wanted to believe it for his wife's sake.

Not just because of WHY he wanted to believe, but also because (going by the reviews) he presents the book as an honest examination of the evidence, almost like a legal case, and yet did not even so much as talk to a single non-believer, instead letting his Christian friends speak for that side.

In the future, if you want to try and convince me (or any of the other atheists on this site) of something to do with Christianity, vet your sources. Examine them, look at them, make sure they are up to snuff.
I was able to find all that was wrong with Strobel's book in less than a minute. So this suggests to me that either you had read his book and honestly didn't catch any of the flaws in it...or you had not read it, but heard of it from other Christians who happened to give it a hearty recommendation.
In either case, your own position here stands gravely weakened because of it.

What about Simon Greenleaf? He was chief founder of Harvard Law School and the author of the renowned legal work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. He started off with the position that the resurrection story was inane. Yet it was because he was challenged by his students that he set forth to debunk the resurrection story. He started off with confirmation bias, obviously. Yet he still overcame that bias to come to the conclusion that the resurrection was true.

Haven't read him. Care to link to something of his, so I can look at it?

Simon Greenleaf knows how to conduct investigations.

So does Strobel. He has a Master's in Law from Yale, according to Wikipedia, and yet see what he did with his book...

CS Lewis is another example.

I honestly haven't read Lewis (should get around to it one of these days), but among atheist circles, he's widely regarded as a joke for his apologetics, mainly to do with his Liar, Lunatic or Lord trilemma.

So I ask you this question again: Can you honestly say that non believers of Santa Claus could examine the story and come to believe it?

A non-believer can come to believe anything. Just because Non-Believer Person A now believes Story X doesn't mean that belief in Story X is justifiable when Non-Believer B comes along. It could be that Person A believes the story for bad reasons.

It depends on one's outlook. If one acknowledges the supernatural as true, especially observing it themselves, then "supernatural monsters" will be a feasible explanation.

As someone who accepts the supernatural, consider the following dilemma. Two people come up to you, Ann and Bob, and both of them say they have supernatural creatures at their respectives home. Ann says Bob is saying an untruth, and Bob says the same of Ann.
How do you examine the situation? What methodology do you use?

No, they are not the same:

We find the Holy Spirit through prayer, while spirit guides are contacted in dangerous ways:

Prayer can be considered a type of meditation. Either way, how do you convince someone like myself that not only is your Holy Spirit real, but that it speaks the truth, while these other people over there in that corner are talking to evil demons, even if those people say to me that what Claire is talking to is an evil demon?

Tune in and start to believe. ...
Meditate with crystals. ...
Get out in nature. ...
Ask your spirit guides to reveal themselves. ...
Keep a spirit guide journal. ...
Try "automatic writing." ...
Tap into your third eye.

These are purely occult practices.

Is 'occult' synonymous with evil? Are any of the practices of Christianity 'occult'?

It depends on what they do. Levitation is not an hallucination.

And yet to date, I am not aware of a single case of levitation being verified. More than that, even if such were verified, how do we find out whether the agent responsible for it is good or evil? A person levitating is just well levitating. What does that tell us about the intentions of the magical entity behind it?

Shape shifting is a good example of demonic possession:

Haven't you linked that video before? I've seen it before, pretty sure you linked it before in earlier discussions. It's a low res video broadcast captured on a low res camera, being zoomed in. You linking that video just shows how much you WANT to believe that there are reptiloids (or whatever they're called) running around, how much you don't examine what you present as evidence.
Come back when you understand how video broadcasts and video capturing work. Try looking up what a pixel is, and what happens when you record a low definition video on a low definition camera, then zoom in.

[Claire Evans]

Yes, we do know that for certain. The Bishop Nicholas did exist. Santa was never claimed to be God incarnate/the Son of God.

Many Christians argue that Jesus never did either.

They don't know what they are talking about.

Jesus claimed to be God in John 8:58:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

"I AM" is the title of God in the OT.

And it's obvious Jesus called Himself the Son.

There is no legend where it is claimed that Santa's realm is in the spirit world, unlike Jesus.

Perhaps Santa wanted people to take him more seriously?

Other than for kids, that didn't work, did it?

Do you have any historical sources to back up the claims that Santa is a spiritual being?

Only stories that have been written on paper. But then that's the same with Jesus.

We don't need historical sources to tell us ever little detail about Santa Claus. We can determine he is supernatural and not a standard human being by the things that it has been recorded that he can do (like travel faster than the speed of light, easily get down chimneys even tiny narrow modern ones, make reindeers fly etc.) If he is not some kind of supernatural spiritual being then how could he do all that stuff?

But nobody has accused Santa of witch-craft, there is now investigations into the veracity of claims of Santa.

Is it a historical fact that Santa existed and that he did supernatural acts like in the case of Jesus?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 327 by Claire Evans]

But nobody has accused Santa of witch-craft, there is now investigations into the veracity of claims of Santa.

You've really got to get a handle on your logic. Does a supernatural being need to be accused of witchcraft before investigations into claims about it can be done?

Is it a historical fact that Santa existed and that he did supernatural acts like in the case of Jesus?

It is not a historical fact that Jesus existed or did supernatural acts. This is why you don't see history departments in colleges teaching Jesus rose from the dead. They leave that to their theology fellows.

[OnceConvinced]

Yes, we do know that for certain. The Bishop Nicholas did exist. Santa was never claimed to be God incarnate/the Son of God.

Many Christians argue that Jesus never did either.

They don't know what they are talking about.

I disagree, many of them know exactly what they are talking about, but you can argue that with them. They have scriptures to back up their claims too. It's all a matter of interpretation and you don't get to dictate what the correct interpretation is.

There is no legend where it is claimed that Santa's realm is in the spirit world, unlike Jesus.

Perhaps Santa wanted people to take him more seriously?

Other than for kids, that didn't work, did it?

I can't speak for all adults, can you?

But nobody has accused Santa of witch-craft,

I would not say Santa was a witch. I would say he was using some kind of godly power, not magic.

there is now investigations into the veracity of claims of Santa.

Yes, much like with God.

Just be aware that Santa may not appreciate being tested. If you attempt to test him he may refuse to do anything to prove he exists or to prove he has supernatural powers.

Is it a historical fact that Santa existed and that he did supernatural acts like in the case of Jesus?

As much historical fact as there is that Jesus did supernatural acts. Simply just unverified tales. At least the author of the "Night before Christmas" can be identified!

I'm willing to believe by faith though. Even Jesus would commend me on that.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 327 by Claire Evans]

It is not a historical fact that Jesus existed or did supernatural acts. This is why you don't see history departments in colleges teaching Jesus rose from the dead. .

Indeed. In fact all we have are stories written by unidentified authors many years after the events supposedly took place. The authors of stories about Santa can actually be identified!

The problem we have here in this subforum is that we are expected to take bible tales as being authoritive. Sadly "The Night before Christmas" and other documents about Santa do not get that same respect