Santa and Jesus

I first heard this at a Flaming Lips concert. It intrigued me the more I thought about it. What are your opinions on this statement:

Surely if you believe in Jesus you have to believe in Santa too.

 

I think it's the quality of philosophy you should expect to hear at a rock concert.

 

LOL the letters in santa spell satan. Santa is the commercial deception of christmas. It gets our eyes off of the true meaning. Christ being born etc and turn into a greedfest. I'm sure satan loves christmas.

 

I think it's sad when religious people teach their kids about santa. If you have to explain that he isn't real when they are older..... then what makes you think that they won't doubt Jesus is real?

 

PeaceSells,


I wonder if you could explain more about this peculiar 'rider' often added to Jesus?

I fail to see the reason both must be 'believed in' (whatever you think that means?)

Jesus is a historic person whom is recorded as having transcended death and lives in Spirit with his followers.

Saint Nicholas is a historic person who was a follower of Christ and believed that Jesus 'living in him' encouraged him to give gifts to children on the Christ Mass.

My understanding is that the Coca Cola company created a 'Large Elf' charicature based on St. Nicholas, which has become the 'popular' representation of Jesus living through people.

So .. Im still not clear on what or why Im 'believing in' Santa and why that must go along with 'Believing in' Jesus?

Please clarify.
Thanks

 

no no! I wasn't saying I believed it, I don't! I just said it intrigued me and wondered what your opinions would be. Haha the flaming lips aren't rock and the guy is really clever.. or are you mocking someones beliefs?


well.. Im guessing that just as Jesus is still around today.. in spirit to perform miracles etc making people happy
santa is still around to give all the kiddies their presents and make them happy etc
If we don't believe in Jesus we go to hell.
If we don't believe in Santa we don't get presents.
If we aren't good we go to hell. If we're bad we get coal.. *so the story goes*
Santa can deliver presents to those that believe in Santa in a couple of hours. Jesus is everywhere.
Jesus was a good man, a historical figure. Santa was too.. etc etc and that could be all.. there is no proof that either are real now -- just written things and tradition

You may argue to some of that but I guess some of it applies to particular denominations.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more it sounds silly but I just wanted to see other people's view x peace

 

Well,,, I can solve part of this for you (I think?)

There is a good reason there are similarities. Its not a 'Coincidence' by accident.

The Church at that time liked to find people who represented the Love of Christ and here was this fella named Nicholas. They would make 'examples' out of these people.
'Posterboys' so to speak.

Certainly, this guy was a great example of 'Christ living through his followers'.

He was 'Christ-like' if you will.

So I hope that explains why there are similarities in 'some senses'.

Obviously, Saint Nick has been turned into entirely different 'Charicatures' by marketing purposes or popular culture etc.

For what its worth to you:
The ONLY reason we believe ANYONE in the history of the planet 'existed' is because of Writing.
Caesar Augustus, Mary Queen of Scots, Buddha .. you name them - and we think they existed because of writing.
Hey. .. even recently, we only believe the pictures of Abraham Lincoln are actually of a guy named Lincoln is because writings say those are pictures of him.

But anyway.. the big differences between Saint Nick and Jesus:
Jesus died on a cross in our place
Saint Nick passed away as usual
Jesus was God on Earth
We see Saint Nicholas as being a mere mortal.

So those are a few extremely enormous differences.

 

Umm no. There are NO reliable records of that happening outside of the Bible.

In fact, the only records of Jesus' existence at all outside of his cult of 40-50 people come from Roman criminal records describing his overturning the tables in the marketplace.

 

Khandahar,


There are no less than four accounts of this happening.
Several other accounts verify and validate those four accounts.

Its a good thing you are not a investigator or else you would conclude 'There is no evidence 'outside' the evidence we have' lol!

In anycase, you need to go back and re-read the posts.
The original premise is 'as taken' or ' based on what people believe...'

So, 'Christians believe'..... Christ died and rose again.

In the story of Santa, people 'believe' he gives kids gifts.

Get it?

 

Q: What did the dyslexic devil worshipper say?
A: HAIL SANTA!!!

AHAHAHAH!!

In any case, Santa turned out ta be my parents, so would that make my parents Jesus, too?

 

You're telling me I should just blindly accept the 2000-year-old testimony of four of Jesus' cult followers, who claim they saw him rise from the dead?

It's a good thing YOU are not an investigator. If I can get four people to say that we saw Elvis in a UFO, will you believe us?

The truth is, most good historical records come from hundreds or thousands of different sources, not four (most likely delusional) people. In the case of Jesus, that evidence is simply not there. I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but I'm sure he didn't rise from the dead.

 

Kandahar,
It is not true that most historical figures are verified by thousands of sources. I suspect you made that up and hope people will believe its true because you said so.

The situation with the Gospels goes further than the four documentries written about the events.
Those documentaries were published and therefore exposed to thousands of witnesses who could verify or disagree with the claims.

Will you at least agree that Plato is not a 'real' historic figure.. or at least that we have absolutely no evidence he was a philosopher teacher or anything besides a few copies of documents by his followers 'claiming' he existed and taught.
(Even though they never met him anyway)

You should be consistant and declare Socrates and Plato and almost any Caesar to have no real outside proof of their existance?

 

It's sad how they teach parents to lie to their kids. It's sad how kids are tought to believe those lies

 

For example, Teaching their children that there are no historic evidences that Jesus existed (for some reason discounting Mathew Mark Luke and John).

Yes. that is sad.

Heck, I don't believe Mohammed was a true Prophet and while there is no 'proof' he existed - its much harder to believe he did not.
You dont have thousands of followers with that kind of Zeal and expect me to believe that they all just 'made up' a fake character and convinced others he 'must have' existed.
Mohammed is a real historical figure by ANY standard we have.

It would be sad if I taught my children he was not a real person.

 

There WERE people who disagreed with the claims. You forget that Christianity was an insignificant little cult until several decades after Christ's death, when St. Paul travelled through the Roman Empire. You just choose to ignore them.

And again, just because there are thousands of witnesses (although that number is definitely overestimated) doesn't make it true. Thousands of people have claimed they saw UFOs, ghosts, and other idiotic things that they obviously didn't. David Koresh convinced lots of people he was God. That doesn't make them any less delusional.

I think you were thinking specifically of Socrates, not of Plato. There are independent records of Socrates' existence other than Plato's writings, such as Greek government records and the writings of his detractors. However, I do take issue with "historians" who believe in the version of Socrates that Plato writes about, as Plato definitely inserted his personal bias into his works.

Most/all of the Caesars have ample evidence. The Romans were great record-keepers, and there were private political essays as well. Obviously though, we know more about some of them than others because of the amount of evidence.

You seem to be confusing the "evidence" required to show someone existed with the "evidence" required to show that someone existed and rose from the dead. Those are NOT the same thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

How ironic that the title of this thread refers to Santa Claus, and you chose to include this sentence...

 

Kandahar,


Please explain what you find 'ironic'?

Since we have established that Saint Nicholas was a historic figure and 'Santa Claus' is a 'Charicature'... and that no adult that I know of believes there is a 'Giant Jolly Elf' - What is Ironic again?

 

The point is that there are thousands of people who believe (or at least claim to believe) in Santa Claus (the jolly elf), and actually convince other people to believe in him. And if you want proof that they are zealous, just take a look in any department store around Christmas time.

I think that if no one's parents ever told them that there was no Santa Claus, and they continued receiving presents from him at Christmas time, most people really WOULD be stupid enough to believe in him through adulthood. It's the same irrationality that drives belief in religion.

 

That is simply not true.
Even if you want to include children - you would be hard pressed to find a child under the age of 10 who believes Santa Claus is a real person.

No, they do not convince other people to believe in 'Santa'.
Again, no one thinks he is a real person.
Department stores are full of 'Zealots' alright. Its to Get Stuff and not out of some belief in a Jolly Elf.

No. This would not happen.
People would consider the evidence and using rational deduction determine there was no Jolly Elf delivering gifts.
Most by the age of 12.

I guess I just dont follow you on that bizarre conclusion.

 

lol that's so funny....

does the reverse work?

if you believe in Santa, then u must also believe in Jesus?