Does Santa exist?

[EverChanging]

haha i knew it was leading to that

but i can tell you, no. The reason I can tell you no is because christianity is not a myth. The watchtower society like any other christian denomination did not 'invent' christianity. And the WT is not a new version of christianity. Christianity as written in the NT has been the same since it was first penned....its written in there for all to see and if we fashion our beliefs and methods in the same way then we are not creating a new version.

i understand that there are many varying beliefs among Christians but that's not because there are different versions of the bible, its because those beliefs are not based on the bible and that is why there are differences.

If you were a first-century Christian, you wouldn't have a canonized Bible or adhere to anything similar to sola scriptura.

 

[Comet]

I would like to start a debate based on the evidence for and against the existence of Santa Claus.

What is the evidence for Santa?

What is the evidence against Santa?

Why do you believe/not believe in Santa?

Anything that is real to somebody is real in a sence.....

 

[Comet]

If you were a first-century Christian, you wouldn't have a canonized Bible or adhere to anything similar to sola scriptura.

A 1st Century Christian would have had access to the non-canonized books indeed. And so many Christians of today scoff at Gnostics despite their hate for the Roman Catholic beliefs!

 

[ellenjanuary]

I would like to start a debate based on the evidence for and against the existence of Santa Claus.

What is the evidence for Santa?

What is the evidence against Santa?

Why do you believe/not believe in Santa?

Nah, man. He was just executed in Texas.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you were a first-century Christian, you wouldn't have a canonized Bible or adhere to anything similar to sola scriptura.

Since the writings from the first century were regarded as reliable that is what gave us the Christian NT Scriptures.

The Hebrew OT Scriptures were already completed before the first century.
So further down the stream of time the church did not have to establish Scripture but merely testify as to what was already accepted as canon.
Ancient manuscripts would have already supported Bible canon the collection of already existing Bible books.

Philip used 'sola Scripture', so to speak, but Philip was 'first taught Scripture by another' before he could teach the Ethiopian official of Acts 8vs30-35.
Like the apostles, such spiritually older men, so to speak, would follow Jesus command to teach or be teaching what they knew to another.
-Matt 28vs19,20

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Faith is not about things we don't perceive, its about things we have little to no good evidence for. I have never directly perceived the evolution of life yet I believe it because of the evidence. There is more to evidence than what we directly perceive.
Santa is being compared to religions because we do not have very good evidence to support his existence, like many religions but that does not mean he does not exist. I will prove to you that my faith is not irrational.
You see, my belief in Santa's existence is just as irrational as my belief in you. What objective evidence do I have to prove you exist?

Santa is being compared to religions is because of religious syncretism.
An old pagan belief system introduced and blended into the new Christian belief system and the result was a fabricated new teaching that took on a life of its own that became so embedded in people's minds that is now very hard to erase and go back to the original first-century Christian belief system.

Why do you say faith is about things we have little to no good evidence?
Didn't Jesus have faith? _____
On what did Jesus base his beliefs and faith?
Jesus based his faith on already existing Scripture and often quoted or referred to the Hebrew OT Scriptures teaching and explaining them to us.

Over the vast many centuries many Bible enemies, from within and without, have tried to get rid of the Bible without success. No one can stop its world wide distribution. Just like no one can stop Matthew 24v14 that the good news of God's kingdom [government] would be proclaimed world wide or on a global scale. Rapid Bible translation has even helped speed up that process.
All that is quite real.

 

[linwood]

A 1st Century Christian would have had access to the non-canonized books indeed. And so many Christians of today scoff at Gnostics despite their hate for the Roman Catholic beliefs!

A first century Christian wouldn`t be able to read those books for the most part.

 

[Comet]

Since the writings from the first century were regarded as reliable that is what gave us the Christian NT Scriptures.

The Hebrew OT Scriptures were already completed before the first century.
So further down the stream of time the church did not have to establish Scripture but merely testify as to what was already accepted as canon.
Ancient manuscripts would have already supported Bible canon the collection of already existing Bible books.

Philip used 'sola Scripture', so to speak, but Philip was 'first taught Scripture by another' before he could teach the Ethiopian official of Acts 8vs30-35.
Like the apostles, such spiritually older men, so to speak, would follow Jesus command to teach or be teaching what they knew to another.
-Matt 28vs19,20

OT is OT, when it comes to NT... research Nag Hamadi and that which is OLDER than the gospels of the NT!

 

[paolops181]

Santa is man made!

 

[EverChanging]

A 1st Century Christian would have had access to the non-canonized books indeed. And so many Christians of today scoff at Gnostics despite their hate for the Roman Catholic beliefs!

Yeah, it's pretty ignorant.

 

[EverChanging]

Since the writings from the first century were regarded as reliable that is what gave us the Christian NT Scriptures.

Actually, the early Christians in different communities did not have access to all of the texts we do today and often read different scriptures. There are hundreds of gospels and other alleged writings by Paul, etc.

The Hebrew OT Scriptures were already completed before the first century.
So further down the stream of time the church did not have to establish Scripture but merely testify as to what was already accepted as canon.

And they didn't have the Christian scriptures (or what you call the New Testament).

Ancient manuscripts would have already supported Bible canon the collection of already existing Bible books.

There are hundreds and hundreds of writings that have been left out of the canon. I don't know what you mean by saying ancient manuscripts support the canon. Protestants don't accept all of the books Roman Catholics and Anglicans accept, and the Eastern Orthodox have even more books in the canon than the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. This question has never been fully settled.

Philip used 'sola Scripture', so to speak, but Philip was 'first taught Scripture by another' before he could teach the Ethiopian official of Acts 8vs30-35.

He was taught the Hebrew scriptures, not the Christian (or as you say, New Testament) scriptures. Nor is learning the scriptures to teach others necessarily sola scriptura. The first century Christians often had to rely on oral tradition, especially since there was no agreed upon canon other than the Hebrew scriptures.

Sola scriptura is an incoherent theology. It is nothing but tradition that decides which books are in the Bible. To point to the scriptures themselves to justify the scriptures is circular reasoning.

 

[Dan4reason]

So as long as you cannot see something, you cat' it with Santa?

Well, if I believe that you exist, yet I don't believe in Santa, then I am contradicting myself because these are both unseen and are just as unproven.

But you see a light above. Can I say you get warmed and burnt by the rays from Santa's tanning Salon?

Well, I know that Santa does not control the sun so your arguement is wrong. The sun is actually a ball of fire as shown below.

 

[1AOA1]

Well, if I believe that you exist, yet I don't believe in Santa, then I am contradicting myself because these are both unseen and are just as unproven.

But I'm writing to you. Isn't this evidence for my existence?

Well, I know that Santa does not control the sun so your arguement is wrong. The sun is actually a ball of fire as shown below.

So what if I show you a picture of Santa?

 

[Dan4reason]

But I'm writing to you. Isn't this evidence for my existence?

My belief in you is not in contention. I am saying that because I believe in you, then I must believe in Santa to remain logical.

Once I wrote a letter to Santa and he responded. So the level of evidence for him and you are both the same. Why should I believe in you but not him.

So what if I show you a picture of Santa?

Just more evidence that he exists. And by the way I have looked at the sun through a telescope and it really does have that appearance.

 

[1AOA1]

My belief in you is not in contention. I am saying that because I believe in you, then I must believe in Santa to remain logical.

Once I wrote a letter to Santa and he responded. So the level of evidence for him and you are both the same. Why should I believe in you but not him.[\quote]

so you're saying, as long as you believe in something you cannot directly perceive, you must believe in Santa correct?

Just more evidence that he exists. And by the way I have looked at the sun through a telescope and it really does have that appearance.

Great. .I'd like to accept your word that you've had some 'extra sensory' experience but do you have any plainly perceptible evidence that I can use? I don't have access to a telescope.

 

[Dan4reason]

so you're saying, as long as you believe in something you cannot directly perceive, you must believe in Santa correct?

To remain logically consistent, yes.

Great. .I'd like to accept your word that you've had some 'extra sensory' experience but do you have any plainly perceptible evidence that I can use? I don't have access to a telescope.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amazing-Telescope-W-tripod-/120663699214?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c181def0e#ht_500wt_1156

 

[1AOA1]

To remain logically consistent, yes.

Built merely on whether something is perceptible or not?

Amazing Telescope W/ tripod - eBay (item 120663699214 end time Dec-26-10 17:33:15 PST)

So if I don't have a telescope, there is no perceptible evidence for the sun? You've only pointed me to the way. No one comes to the sun except through the telescope, or the space ship etc?

 

[Dan4reason]

Built merely on whether something is perceptible or not?

Please clarify.

So if I don't have a telescope, there is no perceptible evidence for the sun? You've only pointed me to the way. No one comes to the sun except through the telescope, or the space ship etc?

Of course there is. Go outside when it is a clear day, and look up.

 

[1AOA1]

Please clarify.

Everything imperceivable established as real, is as real as Santa based soley on perceptibility?

Of course there is. Go outside when it is a clear day, and look up.

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the light. Is the sun this light?