Is God Santa Claus?

[HENI]

Santa gets more attention than Jesus during Christmas. So is Santa Claus the Father God?

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

The church used to be built as the tallest buildings in the town to be closer to God and show the priority. Now the tallest buildings are commercial skyscrapers conducting business.

Same analogy, different skin- capitalism is our God in this age. No question about it.

 

[~Ethereal~]

I want Santa to give me lots of prezzies and hugs!!

 

[patrickscott]

Money + Power + Knowledge = God in this day and age. I mean pshh do you actually think there are multibilion dollar CEO's and Presidents not involved in secret societies pushing their own agenda through Government propaganda? Ooops said too much

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

Money + Power + Knowledge = God in this day and age. I mean pshh do you actually think there are multibilion dollar CEO's and Presidents not involved in secret societies pushing their own agenda through Government propaganda? Ooops said too much

Haven't said enough really

 

[Monxstaa]

Money + Power + Knowledge = God in this day and age. I mean pshh do you actually think there are multibilion dollar CEO's and Presidents not involved in secret societies pushing their own agenda through Government propaganda? Ooops said too much

Its not like they will be see it anyways lmao

 

[patrickscott]

Its not like they will be see it anyways lmao

True but I mean they wouldnt stress over it either.

Haven't said enough really

What you wanna know?

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

True but I mean they wouldnt stress over it either.



What you wanna know?

People gotta know

 

[patrickscott]

People gotta know

People don't want the truth, they want it caramelized and deep fried in sweet juicy finger licking deception. You give them the truth they try to throw you in jail or a mental facility.

 

[Yang release]

Santa Claus is a distraction/antichrist tool to use against us to actually celebrate yeshuas birth and purpose instead they focus on Santa and his bullshit gifts and fatass it's all part of the agenda

 

[BLAZE]

pretty close since both are fiction

Santa Claus is a distraction/antichrist tool to use against us to actually celebrate yeshuas birth and purpose instead they focus on Santa and his bullshit gifts and fatass it's all part of the agenda

lel this dude

 

[-Punk-]

Yes, everytime I ask something I get it and that is Santa that is God.

 

[Monxstaa]

True but I mean they wouldnt stress over it either.



What you wanna know?

Yeah true say

pretty close since both are fiction

lel this dude

Some people lml

 

[Caliburn]

Santa Claus is a distraction/antichrist tool to use against us to actually celebrate yeshuas birth and purpose instead they focus on Santa and his bullshit gifts and fatass it's all part of the agenda

Santa Claus comes from Saint Nicholas, a popular and early Christian saint who's, among other things, the patron saint of children and who had the habit of secretly giving out gifts. His official feast day is the 6th of December. This all transformed in several parts of Europe, in particular in the Low Countries where I live, into a feast on the 6th of December for children where 'miraculously' gifts appear for them in their houses when they wake up. Now when Dutch colonists left for the new world somehow his name got bastardized to Santa Claus and his character likewise underwent some transformations. I don't know exactly when he moved from the 6th of December to the 25th, but I do know that the popular image of a jolly fat man with red cheeks and a red costume was created by the Coca Cola Company. So yeah Santa's pretty much a company mascot. Still he's not an antichrist as his roots are very well Christian.

This is also the reason why there isn't a real Santa cult here as we have Saint Nicholas. Frankly all the Santa Claus stuff we do have comes from America. It's pretty much the same story as Halloween.

And btw the 25th of December was originally a pagan holiday and Jesus wasn't born on that day. They merged to the two together so that pagans would be more accepting of the Christian faith. Jesus was born somewhere in March or something, so it's a rather hypocritical remark to say that Santa Claus is a distraction while the original purpose of that feast had nothing to do with Christianity in the first place.

 

[Marin]

And btw the 25th of December was originally a pagan holiday and Jesus wasn't born on that day. They merged to the two together so that pagans would be more accepting of the Christian faith. Jesus was born somewhere in March or something, so it's a rather hypocritical remark to say that Santa Claus is a distraction while the original purpose of that feast had nothing to do with Christianity in the first place.

While I applaud you for the Santa Claus deal, I'll have to disagree in regards to this. The reason is that we simply have no evidence to justifiably conclude that plagiarization or syncretism of any sort took place here (aside from adopting obvious customs and decorations). The only festival one could make a historically plausible case for would be Sol Invictus. Both are Roman, Sol is older, both are ancient and both have similar thematics. Why do I disagree with the conceus?

Well, we simply don't know when exactly Christmas originated. The first use of the term was recorded in the 4th century, well after Invictus' 3d. However, this occurance is taken as the earliest known, not factually earliest. It may seem like grasping straws, but the point is that a lot of beliefs and practices of the early Church weren't precisely defined until situations asked for it. (For example, the concept of Trinity was well-known in the early years, but was not defined until late 2nd century.)

Other non-christian records also mention some of the practices and creeds of the early Church such as Sunday prayer (later known as mass) which was recorded by Lucian in his "Passing of Peregrinus". Another thing worth noting is that until 300s Christianity was under high intolerance. It had to keep a somewhat low profile and thus finding any solid early records of it's beliefs and practices as precicely defined as today would be a highly difficult task. It was only after it's legalization in 313AD that the Church had authority to organize public festivities, which was long after Sol Invictus was established (even though Christianity predates it).

So really, I don't think we have any conclusive evidence to say how Christmas originated, so I don't think it's at all hypocritical to choose one theory over another especially when they seem to be tied.

 

[Caliburn]

While I applaud you for the Santa Claus deal, I'll have to disagree in regards to this. The reason is that we simply have no evidence to justifiably conclude that plagiarization or syncretism of any sort took place here (aside from adopting obvious customs and decorations). The only festival one could make a historically plausible case for would be Sol Invictus. Both are Roman, Sol is older, both are ancient and both have similar thematics. Why do I disagree with the conceus?

Well, we simply don't know when exactly Christmas originated. The first use of the term was recorded in the 4th century, well after Invictus' 3d. However, this occurance is taken as the earliest known, not factually earliest. It may seem like grasping straws, but the point is that a lot of beliefs and practices of the early Church weren't precisely defined until situations asked for it. (For example, the concept of Trinity was well-known in the early years, but was not defined until late 2nd century.)

Other non-christian records also mention some of the practices and creeds of the early Church such as Sunday prayer (later known as mass) which was recorded by Lucian in his "Passing of Peregrinus". Another thing worth noting is that until 300s Christianity was under high intolerance. It had to keep a somewhat low profile and thus finding any solid early records of it's beliefs and practices as precicely defined as today would be a highly difficult task. It was only after it's legalization in 313AD that the Church had authority to organize public festivities, which was long after Sol Invictus was established (even though Christianity predates it).

So really, I don't think we have any conclusive evidence to say how Christmas originated, so I don't think it's at all hypocritical to choose one theory over another especially when they seem to be tied.

Dude, you just used the term "plagiarization", which is already a highly inappropriate term to be used in this context. Secondly you completely disregarded the Celtic and Germanic cultures which I was largely referring too, not the Roman/Greek one. Early Christianity was mostly Greek-based, however when the Western Roman Empire fell and the Eastern Roman Emperor lost interest in the West, the pope turned towards the strongest of the new German kingdoms for protection: the Franks. They became catholic and started the christianization process of Western Europe (which had only a small Christian community at that time) that would take centuries using primarily the method of assimilation. Meaning instead of disposing their existing culture from one day to the next, they slowly assimilated it with Christianity. For example they turned old gods, demi-gods and legendary heroes into saints. The days of the week also originate from this time and likewise they assimilated already existing feasts. There is ample evidence that this happened and it's also very well certain that the Germans and Celts had their own feasts during the period of Christmas as it's an important time in the solar cycle. This is how among other things the pagan christmas tree supposedly got introduced.

Frankly it's quite ludicrous how you are acting as this is the result of extensive historical research and then you comically say "I disagree". Also I said it was hypocritical that he calls santa BS because Christmas is supposed to revolve around Jesus while it's a fact that the old Celtic and Germanic tribes weren't celebrating his birth back then and the point I was trying to make was that the meaning of a feast can shift. Just like how the old pagan feast got christianized, now Christmas became commercialized and that's not a theory. The guy wasn't even talking about theories.

 

[Deadlift]

Provocative and disrespectful title, I guess that when you have no solid arguments you resort to strawmen in order to criticize the ideology you don't like. "New Atheists" and their fanboys do it all the time. Remind me to never take your threads seriously anymore.

Santa Claus is a distraction/antichrist tool to use against us to actually celebrate yeshuas birth and purpose instead they focus on Santa and his bullshit gifts and fatass it's all part of the agenda

As Caliburn rightly pointed out, Santa Claus represent a real saint aka Saint Nicholas. So no, he was nothing like an antichrist: he even punched Arius in the face.

So really, I don't think we have any conclusive evidence to say how Christmas originated, so I don't think it's at all hypocritical to choose one theory over another especially when they seem to be tied.

Dude, you just used the term "plagiarization", which is already a highly inappropriate term to be used in this context. Secondly you completely disregarded the Celtic and Germanic cultures which I was largely referring too, not the Roman/Greek one. Early Christianity was mostly Greek-based, however when the Western Roman Empire fell and the Eastern Roman Emperor lost interest in the West, the pope turned towards the strongest of the new German kingdoms for protection: the Franks. They became catholic and started the christianization process of Western Europe (which had only a small Christian community at that time) that would take centuries using primarily the method of assimilation. Meaning instead of disposing their existing culture from one day to the next, they slowly assimilated it with Christianity. For example they turned old gods, demi-gods and legendary heroes into saints. The days of the week also originate from this time and likewise they assimilated already existing feasts. There is ample evidence that this happened and it's also very well certain that the Germans and Celts had their own feasts during the period of Christmas as it's an important time in the solar cycle. This is how among other things the pagan christmas tree supposedly got introduced.

Frankly it's quite ludicrous how you are acting as this is the result of extensive historical research and then you comically say "I disagree". Also I said it was hypocritical that he calls santa BS because Christmas is supposed to revolve around Jesus while it's a fact that the old Celtic and Germanic tribes weren't celebrating his birth back then and the point I was trying to make was that the meaning of a feast can shift. Just like how the old pagan feast got christianized, now Christmas became commercialized and that's not a theory. The guy wasn't even talking about theories.

I disagree.

If this is comical you can laugh as much as you want, but let me give you a fact or two to support the claim that Christmas on December the 25th has actually a reason to be.

But first, let me begin by saying that even if the "pagan Christmas" theory were true, it wouldn't take away any credit from the Christmas celebration or the reliability of Christianity:
1) because it's not written anywhere in the Bible that Jesus was effectively born in the 25 of December
2) because Christians would have simply given a new meaning to a pagan celebration, the carnal birth of a God who is more powerful than the whole pantheons of those religions. I can't see anything wrong with this.

For what concerns the mithraic cult and all the supposed parallelisms of pagan gods having a life pretty much similar to the one of Jesus, this is fiction. It is a theory invented in the 90's of the 1900 by some sensationalistic authors like T. Freke and P. Gandy. These authors weren't historians or New Testament scholars, but two simple novelists who understood they could have made success trying to shame the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

They sadly had so much success that it took the agnostic atheist historian Bart Ehrman to savage their infamous theories. He said that all the serious historians are scandalized by such claims, and that the authors didn't give any proof to sustain their assertions. They did well, because those proofs do not exist.

For what concerns your claim about the Christmas celebrations in December the 25th, this is historically incorrect in the way you're using it.
While it's indeed true that the presence of the Sacred Roman Empire restyled the liturgical aspects of the Western Church, this has nothing to do with the date of the Christmas day.

The first document in which that date is certified to be dedicated to the birth of Jesus is from 336 AD, in the Depositio Martyrum, the first official attempt to a liturgical chalendar. However, in 203 AD, Hyppolite of Rome (martyred in 235 AD) wrote: The first coming of our Lord, happened in the flesh in which He was born in Betlehem eight days before the calend of January so Dicember the 25th!

Is this a catch'em all proof that Jesus Christ was effectively born in that date? Probably not, but at the light of these facts I would say that the evidence is a little bit heavier in favor of the traditional theory.

 

[Don Drama]

This is the problem of you adults...you forget the old good times when all of us believed in Santa and his gifts. Regardless what the Bible and other scholars interprets, Santa Clause is a representation of kindness in the yuletide season.

The thread starter's statement is logically fallacious..

 

[Marin]

Dude, you just used the term "plagiarization", which is already a highly inappropriate term to be used in this context.

I used the term "plagiarization" only to point out that it's not what happened. Think of it as a measure against a possible wave of "Christianity ripped-off pagans" which this forum has seen it's fair share of in the past.

Secondly you completely disregarded the Celtic and Germanic cultures which I was largely referring too, not the Roman/Greek one. Early Christianity was mostly Greek-based, however when the Western Roman Empire fell and the Eastern Roman Emperor lost interest in the West, the pope turned towards the strongest of the new German kingdoms for protection: the Franks. They became catholic and started the christianization process of Western Europe (which had only a small Christian community at that time) that would take centuries using primarily the method of assimilation. Meaning instead of disposing their existing culture from one day to the next, they slowly assimilated it with Christianity. For example they turned old gods, demi-gods and legendary heroes into saints. The days of the week also originate from this time and likewise they assimilated already existing feasts. There is ample evidence that this happened and it's also very well certain that the Germans and Celts had their own feasts during the period of Christmas as it's an important time in the solar cycle. This is how among other things the pagan christmas tree supposedly got introduced.

I'm well aware of those festivals as well as historical events regarding Rome. (Rome and Egypt are my fav ancient civilizations btw.) The reason why I only paid attention to Sol is two-fold:
(1) it's the earliest known contact with Christianity (as the German influence only became significant after the fall of Rome)
(2) unlike the rest of the festivities this one is only in the limits of the discussion on the fact that it's actually on December 25th

To elaborate both, I say (1) because I'm not aware of other winter solstice festivities such as Yule coming into contact with Christianity prior to Sol Invictus. I see you raise a point that a lot of influence in regards to customs was assimilated to Christianity and I'll agree with you on that, but that's just not the point! The point of discussion is the core theme of the festival that is Christmas. In regards to (2), I'm focusing on the precise date because you yourself mentioned the festival on 25th having nothing to do with Christianity. The germanic festivals rarely had a one-day format. In fact, most of them lasted for weeks and sometimes they didn't even have a fixed date. The day of 25th was rarely given as a start/end.

Frankly it's quite ludicrous how you are acting as this is the result of extensive historical research and then you comically say "I disagree". Also I said it was hypocritical that he calls santa BS because Christmas is supposed to revolve around Jesus while it's a fact that the old Celtic and Germanic tribes weren't celebrating his birth back then and the point I was trying to make was that the meaning of a feast can shift. Just like how the old pagan feast got christianized, now Christmas became commercialized and that's not a theory. The guy wasn't even talking about theories.

Well ofcourse the tribes weren't celebrating Christ's birth, they weren't celebrating Christmas at all! As I said, the festivities they held were different in respect to what came to be known as Christmas and Christianity (on the assumption that the date was fixed in the effort of assimilation) simply chose the day to hold it's own feast. So no matter how you put it, you can't really say the feast never had anything to do with Christ because without Christ there is no feast - you're talking about a completely seperate line of festivities.

To clarify, even if I were to follow your assumption step by step, I'd simply be left open to a conclusion that Christmas was institued as one of many festivals rather than taking over the meaning of an already existing one as (in the light of current knowledge) not only were those feasts different, but the time of contact is dubious as well.