spamandham

This dodge is getting old. Maybe you should trade it in for a Honda.

You simply refuse to acknowledge even the concept of an ordinary historical core, which was later blown all out of proportion.

Nicholas of Smyrna is the historical core for Santa. Nicholas was an ordinary man with no flying sled, no ability to traverse the world in 1 night, no magic toy factory at the North Pole, etc. His memory just kept getting exaggerated on each retelling until we ended up with Santa.

If this discussion were about a historical Santa instead of Jesus, your obscurantist approach would have you arguing that since deer can't fly, there is a 0% chance of a historical core to Santa.

Sheshbazzar

Ho Ho Ho! you still actually and unquestioningly swallow that "pious romance" fictitious history "Lives of The Saints" crap?
You still wanna believe there was an actual "historical" Santa? What a hoot!
But DO tell us now, from what source did you derive your "historical" information about this jolly old saint "Nicholas of Smyrna"?
Oh! that's right, From the Christian church, Damn man! isn't it just great when you can produce such an unquestionably trustworthy source for your "historical" Santa?
Ummm, you wouldn't happen to have some contemporary and NON-Christian references or evidence for this jolly old Christian "saint" would you?

spamandham

There's no unquestioning swallowing going on, nor is there any desire to believe. There are are records of St. Nicholas older than records of "Santa Claus", who's name obviously derives from "Saint Nicholas". Those records are of an ordinary man. The solstice obviously is older than Santa, and ideas like Odin, Mithras, and Horus are intermixed with the modern Santa as well, but it's still proper to speak of Nicholas as the historical core, unless the history is shown to be fabricated.

It isn't enough just to assume it was fabricated.

I don't automatically reject everything the church says about history. That's an unjustifiable extreme position.

Sheshbazzar

You are aware of course that the very first historical mention of this original "St Nicholas" date to the fanciful Christian "saint" legends of the fourth century?
(in a speech given by patriarch Proclus of Constantinople in 440 AD)

That everything that is "known" or was written about the life of this popular "saint" derives from those "pious-romance" legends propagated from the fourth century forward?
Those "records" were all fabricated, and while they give us a window on the fourth century, they are not trustworthy accounts of earlier times or situations.
Just like good old JC there is not one bit of -contemporary- evidence that this "person" ever actually existed, or did any of the things that latter legends attribute to him.

Do you also believe in "Saint Bacchus" and in "Saint Brigid"? think there was a real "historical" figure behind their legends?
There are lots of saint legends, thousands, may as well just accept them all, one for every girl and boy.

Maybe extreme, but "the church" has -never- been a reliable source for obtaining actual history, that is not its purpose, and that is not its agenda, wasn't then, isn't now. The truth is "the church" or in this case Proclus, and his continuators, didn't know jack-shit about any historical facts of Nicholas's life, and virtually everything that they reported was fabricated on the fly to scratch the itching ears of their cult.
The TRUTH will set you free! (from the lies of the church)

aa5874

So, tell me what do you automatically accept from the church as history without any external corroboration?.

After research, I have to reject everything in the NT without any external corroboration. Their unknown authors are not credible, they wrote confirmed fiction, and implausible events were witnessed.

I must automatically reject the NT as history unless there can be some other credible source that confirm their fantastic tales.

mountainman

Dear wordy,

I was most impressed with your response above. The christian virus certainly infected the planet at some specific point in its (ancient) history. From that point onwards and not a moment sooner it had its origins. If we went back to a point in history before those origins we would find an epoch where the virus was not. The question involves an examination of the probability of the HJ in context with all that we know of the ancient history relating to christian origins in a chronological sense. Specifically in which century was the new testament canon assembled -- because the new testament canon and the HJ are in one sense indistinguishable since the former provides the only known evidence for the latter. The problem is that this evidence itself (ie: the NT canon) was delivered quite late, and was associated (rightfully or wrongfully) with a brand new state monotheistic Roman religion.

The OS is of course wetware running the conscious and subconscious in parallel streams. The value of archaeological evidence is that it necessarily addresses the things in the conscious mind. People can stuff what they like into the subsconscious, and speak to all manners of gods and deities and entities of various dimensions, but the evidence remains visible (or invisible, as the case may be).

Of course we could also look (retrospectively) at the progressional general belief of the centuries ....

What was the probability of an HJ in the first century? ZERO or null?
What was the probability of an HJ in the second century? ZERO or null?
What was the probability of an HJ in the third century? ZERO or null?
What was the probability of an HJ in the fourth century? 50 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the fifth century? 70 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the sixth century? 100 percent?
etc
What was the probability of an HJ in the seventeenth century? 100 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the eighteenth century? 100 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the nineteenth century? 99 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the twentieth century? 98 percent?
What was the probability of an HJ in the twenty-first century? 49 percent?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

When you move the subject of your research to include the NT apochrypha into the scope of your more general examination please let me know. If you are wondering where to find these other stories pick up the coin of the NT canon which you have had under the electron microscope, and turn it over to the other side. As an Australian who is familiar with the game of "two-up" I understand very well from experience that all coins have two sides which tell two stories which are harmonised in the coin itself.

Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

No political organization, be it Caesar or the church has been a reliable source in the sense that we can just blindly accept whatever they say, but that doesn't mean everything they say is fiction either.

The church (Eusebius) is the only source of the writings of Josephus. Did Eusebius just invent those, or do you consider the church to have been a source of some actual history in that case?

spamandham

Anything that has no obvious theological/propaganda implications, nor is out of the ordinary, seems reasonable to tentatively accept.

Santa isn't mentioned in the New Testament.

aa5874

Now, tell me what in the NT has NO obvious theological/propaganda implications, nor seems out of ordinary?

Is it the conception of Jesus, the birth of Jesus, the temptation, the baptism, the miracles, the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascension?

Please tell me exactly what you would automatically accept about Jesus in the NT?

Santa isn't mentioned in the New Testament.[/QUOTE]

Well, just show me a book where it is claim that the historical Santa did live in the North Pole and rode reindeers through the sky with bags filled toys.