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.

[nikolayevich]

You're insulted by me not caring about your opinion?

Fragile ego, I must say...

foshizzle, I think people have pointed out a few times here how you've been disrespectful. Nobody is "fragile" for pointing this out. It's just that nobody likes it. Please note the rules and avoid personal comments. They only serve to weaken one's position in a debate anyway. If your arguments are solid they should stand on their own.

[foshizzle]

I kept the argument nonpersonal untill Lillsnopp entered and began discussing irrelevant issues. Am I the only one at fault?

[nikolayevich]

I kept the argument nonpersonal untill Lillsnopp entered and began discussing irrelevant issues. Am I the only one at fault?

We don't have rules which provide exceptions. That is, it doesn't matter your reasons for not following forum rules. Please avoid doing so.

If you have a problem with another poster, please inform us, either by reporting a post or sending us a PM. Disagreement [sometimes heated] is kind of the norm in a debate situation. Don't let it cause you to stray from straight forward argumentation. Everyone is tempted to on occasion, but it is generally only incendiary, leading to degraded dialog.

So let your words speak and rebut as needed using logic in place of emotion.

[trencacloscas]

Oooops... been away from the debate a couple of days and now I find this

Well, no disrespect claimed here, foshizzle. I think our last answer had been...

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

As I mentioned before, not contemporaries are not valid, because they could not be independent witnesses. Then, for starters, Tacitus, Pliny, Hadrian, his supposed freedman Phlegon, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion (check the full scope at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html) and Lucian of Samosata are ruled out. Thallus has no definitive date of lifetime assigned, but even agreeing a previous date the problems of his text are abusive: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html
Some of this authors don't even mention Christ but Christians. We all know that Christians exist (since when, that's another story) and existed but the point is that we know that orphists existed in Ancient Greece, and that is not the same than condoning the existence of the original mentor Orpheus.

[foshizzle]

As I mentioned before, not contemporaries are not valid, because they could not be independent witnesses. Then, for starters, Tacitus, Pliny, Hadrian, his supposed freedman Phlegon, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion (check the full scope at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mara.html) and Lucian of Samosata are ruled out. Thallus has no definitive date of lifetime assigned, but even agreeing a previous date the problems of his text are abusive: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html
Some of this authors don't even mention Christ but Christians. We all know that Christians exist (since when, that's another story) and existed but the point is that we know that orphists existed in Ancient Greece, and that is not the same than condoning the existence of the original mentor Orpheus.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not contemporaries are not valid, because they could not be independent witnesses." Can you reword that, or reexplain?

Some of this authors don't even mention Christ but Christians. We all know that Christians exist (since when, that's another story) and existed

This is true, but the timing of the writings and the records of the roman empire indicate a huge surge of Christians during that time. Martyrs became as numerous as WalMart employees. What would spark such a huge willingness to die, especially from Paul and the disciples? Why would they be willing to be tortured to death to advance a concept and religion that they knew wasn't true?

This doesn't verify that Christ was telling the truth ('nother thread, 'nother time), but lying or not, the Disciples had to get this from someone. It's possible they were tricked, but /someone/ had to trick them.

[MJB05]

but from my experience with you, you're opinion of my responses is not worth caring about.

Like i said, you ignored everything i said, and then insulted me. You should bow before me, as i can predict the future pretty well, similar to God eh? (except that i am above him).

How is a statement like this justifyable in a debate yet other stuff was considered insulting? Statements like this are just used to try and provoke people of faith to insults and nothing more...

As for if Jesus actually existed or not...

I think the fact that he was mentioned in not only in Christian text and the New Testement, but that He was also mentioned in Jewish and Roman text from the time and shortly after is enough proof that he actually walked the earth. Debating whether or not He was God would be another thing, but I think it's pretty clear that He was here (I think it's pretty clear that He was God too but that's not what is being discussed at present)...

[bernee51]

As for if Jesus actually existed or not...

I think the fact that he was mentioned in not only in Christian text and the New Testement, but that He was also mentioned in Jewish and Roman text from the time and shortly after is enough proof that he actually walked the earth.

Not really proof. The fact he was mentioned in the NT is not independent evidence. He was not in fact mentioned by name by any of the Roman historians of the time nor at any time after soon after. To the best of my knowledge thre is no text, Roman or otherwise that mentions Jeus by name.

Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to who first mentioned "the Christ". Was it Paul by any chance?

Debating whether or not He was God would be another thing, but I think it's pretty clear that He was here (I think it's pretty clear that He was God too but that's not what is being discussed at present)...

It is not clear to me (and many others - have you read up on the topic at all?) that he was here - and as to being 'god'...there has to first be a 'god'.

[AlAyeti]

Wait a minute.

Whoa!

Time out.

There's no Santa?


Bernee, The New Testament is not to be used as a historical reference why?

Christ means Messiah. Peter said that before Paul.

And like I mentioned before Christ was a title applied to Jesus of Nazareth

Not Tommy or Stevie Christ.

The Romans knew who the followers of Christ (Chrestus) were following. Is ther any credible reason why Christ in the Roman Empire era would not mean Jesus of Nazareth?

The writers of the Talmud writing during that time period certainly meant Jesus of Nazareth.

[trencacloscas]

The Romans knew who the followers of Christ (Chrestus) were following. Is ther any credible reason why Christ in the Roman Empire era would not mean Jesus of Nazareth?

So little were christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26). Source: K. Humphries

The writers of the Talmud writing during that time period certainly meant Jesus of Nazareth.

As far as I know, not one of the many Yeshuas mentioned in the Talmud matches the Christian "Jesus", and definitely no "Jesus Of Nazareth".

And, by the way, Chrestus is not the same as Christ. It was a common name used by slaves and freemen alike

[perplexed101]

The Romans knew who the followers of Christ (Chrestus) were following. Is ther any credible reason why Christ in the Roman Empire era would not mean Jesus of Nazareth?

So little were christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26). Source: K. Humphries

The writers of the Talmud writing during that time period certainly meant Jesus of Nazareth.

As far as I know, not one of the many Yeshuas mentioned in the Talmud matches the Christian "Jesus", and definitely no "Jesus Of Nazareth".

And, by the way, Chrestus is not the same as Christ. It was a common name used by slaves and freemen alike

By Solomon Zeitlin, Dropsie College

Solomn Zeitlin, "The Christ Passage in Josephus," in The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Volume XVIII [1928], pp. 231-255.

In all the outstanding editions and even manuscripts which we possess of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, we find that Josephus mentions Jesus twice. In one, the well-known Christian passage, he relates the story of Jesus and his crucifixion; the other passage is in connection with the trial of James before the Sanhedrin. The first passage reads as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first ceased not, for he appeared to them thereafter again the third day, as the divine prophets foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And even now the tribe of Christians so named from him is not extinct."1

The term Christian means "belonging to Christ" and is derived from the Greek noun Χριστός Khristós which means "anointed one," which is itself a translation of the Hebrew word Moshiach (Hebrew: משיח, also written "Messiah"), (and in Arabic it is pronounced Maseeh مسيح). Christian is primarily an adjective, describing an object associated with Christianity, but is also frequently used as noun in the same sense (ie, a person associated with Christianity). According to the New Testament, those who followed Jesus as his disciples were first called Christians by those who did not share their faith, in the city of Antioch.

Christ, from the Greek in english known as Χριστός, or Khristós, means anointed, and is equivalent to the Hebrew term Messiah. ... The word Hebrew can variously mean: The Hebrew language or Hebrew languages The ancient Hebrew people, or their descendants the Jews The New Testament book Hebrews The term Hebrew is sometimes used by certain Christian groups to distinguish the Jews in ancient times (before the birth of Jesus) from Jews... The concept of the messiah in Judaism is briefly discussed in the Jewish eschatology entry. ... An adjective is a part of speech which modifies a noun, usually making its meaning more specific. ... Christianity is an Abrahamic religion based on the life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament. ... A noun, or noun substantive, is a word or phrase that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance or quality. ... The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Scriptures, is the name given to the part of the Christian Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus. ... The neutrality and accuracy of this article are disputed. ... A Disciple (from the Latin discipulus, a pupil) is one who receives instruction from another; a scholar; a learner; especially, a follower who has learned to believe in the truth of the doctrine of his teacher; an adherent in doctrine. ... This is about one of the cities called Antioch in Asia Minor, now Turkey. ...

taken from: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Christian

In view of the very common usage of the term "Christian" today, any concerned reader must be surprised to see it only three times in the Scriptures. Adding to that is the fact that there is no record of a disciple claiming to be a Christian or of referring to another believer as a Christian. In the first appearance of the term (Acts 11:26) probably ten years after Pentecost, Luke says "they were called Christians," not "they called themselves Christians."

This suggests that the citizens of Antioch, as they saw this new kind of religion developing in their city, attached a sort of nick-name or derisive name to this group arising from the Jewish synagogues without identity with the Jews. In Luke’s other mention of the term (Acts 26:28) there is further evidence of the scornful use of the name. When Paul pressed Agrippa to admit belief, the Jewish king expressed his disgust to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" There must have been a special sneer as he pronounced that prejudicial term "Christian" which he, as a Jew, would presume to identify them with a false Messiah, Jesus

excerpt taken from Cecil Hooks