Comparison of Santa Claus with God

MisterEpicurus

The comparison between Santa and god is often made and usually swiftly dismissed by the ardent theist. The theist may respond by saying things like;

- Oh, but..but...we grow out of believing in Santa Clause, we continue on believing in god

- There is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus whereas there is at least some evidence for the existence of god

This doesn't exhaust the excuses *cough*, reasons that theists have up their skirt but it's certainly 2 of the most common. I think we can safely dismiss the second excuse because if there were evidence for the existence of god then there would be no debate in the first place.

As for the first excuse, well...Children grow out of Santa Claus when they discover, maybe through parents, that Santa Claus was made up. However, this is not told to children regarding god. They don't tell the children god doesn't exist. What would happen if children were collectively told, like Santa Claus, that god didn't exist? Would the levels of believers suddenly drop, I'd think so.

If adults don't drop the idea of god then of course children won't say or even begin to question whether it's silly or not. But when it comes to Santa, the adult is perfectly able to dismiss Santa as silly. The thing is, these theists were once children and so if they were around an environment when everybody dismissed god equally as they do Santa, then would we equally have no theists?

Thus, the only difference between this analogy is that children continue to believe in god whereas their parents dismiss Santa early on.

So this comparison is more than valid and not as trivial as the theist makes it out to be.

Indeed, god and santa have an awful lot in common;

- If you sin, you'll be punished.
- If you behave well, you'll get massive rewards.
- You're being watched all year around and everything you think is taken into account.
- When all this information is collated, final judgement begins to determine whether you should be rewarded or punished.

Isn't god just the adult version of Santa?

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that one out there and see what folks think about it.

Pushtrak

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

This doesn't exhaust the excuses *cough*, reasons that theists have up their skirt but it's certainly 2 of the most common. I think we can safely dismiss the second excuse because if there were evidence for the existence of god then there would be no debate in the first place.

Don't think it is that simple. The first cause argument and pascal's wager would surely keep many adherents to the faith.

MisterEpicurus

Pushtrak wrote: »

Don't think it is that simple. The first cause argument and pascal's wager would surely keep many adherents to the faith.

True - but the first cause argument and Pascal's wager are not evidential at all. I'm saying that there would be no debate if there was actual tangible evidence.

Sindri

We know Santa isn't real. We know it's a huge parental conspiracy. We are told so and we observe it to be so. More importantly our parents know and they participate in the full knowledge that he is not real. They (may) participate in religion even though they do not know. The main difference is that it is accepted that Santa is not real whereas it is not accepted that God is not real.

We cannot say the same about God. We probably should but we can't as the knowledge of his existence (or lack of it) is not actually known. Essentially, your argument would work if it were applied to a world where it was known that God was not real yet we were told he was and we were all children. The conspiracy of Santa was entered into on the full knowledge that he did not exist. The idea of God was not.

MisterEpicurus

Sindri wrote: »

We know Santa isn't real. We know it's a huge parental conspiracy. We are told so and we observe it to be so. More importantly our parents know and they participate in the full knowledge that he is not real. They (may) participate in religion even though they do not know. The main difference is that it is accepted that Santa is not real whereas it is not accepted that God is not real.

We cannot say the same about God. We probably should but we can't as the knowledge of his existence (or lack of it) is not actually known. Essentially, your argument would work if it were applied to a world where it was known that God was not real yet we were told he was and we were all children. The conspiracy of Santa was entered into on the full knowledge that he did not exist. The idea of God was not.

I'm fully aware of this but my point was based on the fact that the analogy is essentially the same. Children adopt the views of their parents as the parents did when they were children. It's a vicious cycle which appears to add legitimacy just because it has lasted so long. Even though we can't trace the god hypothesis back, the analogy still holds true. This isn't an argument against the existence of god, just an analogy to show the equal stupidity of an adult believing in either as they grow older.

wonderfulname

It is interesting how belief in one persists long after the other dies, I know of no one who had to be told by a parent Santa wasn't real, either they worked it out themselves or heard it on the playground, I suppose it illustrates the difference total immersion makes, 11 months of the year not a word is uttered of Santa, whereas religion is a daily intrusion on life for most children.

It's especially interesting when religion has no easily identifiable focus, at least Santa could be seen on the den and the 6 1 news, but again perhaps that is a strength, you can't pull off god's beard...

magicbastarder

i was led to believe when i was younger that hulk hogan and andre the giant's antics were real. does this mean that we can equate hulk hogan with god?

MisterEpicurus

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was led to believe when i was younger that hulk hogan and andre the giant's antics were real. does this mean that we can equate hulk hogan with god?

You're probably being facetious with that comment or you haven't got the main point of my first post.

nuriel_roubini

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

The comparison between Santa and god is often made and usually swiftly dismissed by the ardent theist. The theist may respond by saying things like;

- Oh, but..but...we grow out of believing in Santa Clause, we continue on believing in god

- There is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus whereas there is at least some evidence for the existence of god

This doesn't exhaust the excuses *cough*, reasons that theists have up their skirt but it's certainly 2 of the most common. I think we can safely dismiss the second excuse because if there were evidence for the existence of god then there would be no debate in the first place.

As for the first excuse, well...Children grow out of Santa Claus when they discover, maybe through parents, that Santa Claus was made up. However, this is not told to children regarding god. They don't tell the children god doesn't exist. What would happen if children were collectively told, like Santa Claus, that god didn't exist? Would the levels of believers suddenly drop, I'd think so.

If adults don't drop the idea of god then of course children won't say or even begin to question whether it's silly or not. But when it comes to Santa, the adult is perfectly able to dismiss Santa as silly. The thing is, these theists were once children and so if they were around an environment when everybody dismissed god equally as they do Santa, then would we equally have no theists?

Thus, the only difference between this analogy is that children continue to believe in god whereas their parents dismiss Santa early on.

So this comparison is more than valid and not as trivial as the theist makes it out to be.

Indeed, god and santa have an awful lot in common;

- If you sin, you'll be punished.
- If you behave well, you'll get massive rewards.
- You're being watched all year around and everything you think is taken into account.
- When all this information is collated, final judgement begins to determine whether you should be rewarded or punished.

Isn't god just the adult version of Santa?

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that one out there and see what folks think about it.

the reason its easier to convince people that god exists than santa is because santa is all nice , he doesnt threaten to grill people

Extinction

I think its probably the huge fear factor that surrounds the gods. As a child you understand that if your not good you won't get toys from santa, you will come to the point where you don't want the toys anyway so you are told that santa doesn't exist, santa is a nice idea for a number of years but the rewards run out. The fear of going to hell etc make it very difficult to mature enough to out grow belief in god, it is a lot easier to mature enough to out grow belief in santa as there is no threat of eternal damnation for not believing in the guy in the red suit.

joseph brand

Sindri wrote: »

We know Santa isn't real. We know it's a huge parental conspiracy. We are told so and we observe it to be so. More importantly our parents know and they participate in the full knowledge that he is not real. They (may) participate in religion even though they do not know. The main difference is that it is accepted that Santa is not real whereas it is not accepted that God is not real.

We cannot say the same about God. We probably should but we can't as the knowledge of his existence (or lack of it) is not actually known. Essentially, your argument would work if it were applied to a world where it was known that God was not real yet we were told he was and we were all children. The conspiracy of Santa was entered into on the full knowledge that he did not exist. The idea of God was not.

Parents tell their children a little white lie. Probably my favourite lie.

Then we have strangers (clergy) telling people lies which affect their lives. Controlling them.
Take Joseph Smith for example. He was a madman,a shyster, full of 'tall tales'. But some people believed him! You can take this basic idea and apply it to all other religions.

It would be hilarious if the Vatican had to admit that it was all boll*x. Would catholics just become protestants or would they go into a deep state of shock and depression. (time and money wasted)

Jimoslimos

The analogy I like to draw isn't between Santa and God, but more specifically Santa and Jesus.

Historical evidence points to the probability that both existed at one time, St. Nicholas and Jesus of Nazareth.

However they've both developed a mythology surrounding their actual deeds. Miracles, rising from the dead, delivering presents to every good child on Earth,etc

We reject one as obvious childish fantasy, but the other...

cavedave

God is not buried in Kilkenny

MagicMarker

The truth is that Santa is more believable than the god portrayed in the Bible.

philologos

If there wasn't a heck of a lot more historical and manuscript evidence to back up the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, and the history of the early church as described in the New Testament, I might agree with you. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient source in existence today.

It's in the light of this that I can be convinced that my views hold a lot more weight in reality than belief in Santa. I'd encourage you to research into the matter.

Extinction

philologos wrote: »

If there wasn't a heck of a lot more historical and manuscript evidence to back up the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, and the history of the early church as described in the New Testament, I might agree with you. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient source in existence today.

It's in the light of this that I can be convinced that my views hold a lot more weight in reality than belief in Santa. I'd encourage you to research into the matter.

Ok so there was a Jesus and he was crusified, I'd imagine there were thousands of them and just like santa far fetched stories were made up and written. The bible is no more proof of god than the big book of christmas stories is proof of santa and the miracle of the flying reindeers.

MisterEpicurus

Extinction wrote: »

I think its probably the huge fear factor that surrounds the gods. As a child you understand that if your not good you won't get toys from santa, you will come to the point where you don't want the toys anyway so you are told that santa doesn't exist, santa is a nice idea for a number of years but the rewards run out. The fear of going to hell etc make it very difficult to mature enough to out grow belief in god, it is a lot easier to mature enough to out grow belief in santa as there is no threat of eternal damnation for not believing in the guy in the red suit.

Good post. It could also be inverted to suggest that a child only has the capacity to know its reward is, say, toys. As an adult, the reward becomes too great to let go of. And in both cases, both the adult and the child find it difficult to let go the concept Santa/God doesn't really exist!

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

If there wasn't a heck of a lot more historical and manuscript evidence to back up the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, and the history of the early church as described in the New Testament, I might agree with you. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient source in existence today.
.

So the lie hasn't changed much. Big whoop.

Extinction

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Good post. It could also be inverted to suggest that a child only has the capacity to know its reward is, say, toys. As an adult, the reward becomes too great to let go of. And in both cases, both the adult and the child find it difficult to let go the concept Santa/God doesn't really exist!

Or to put a negative spin on it like religon seems to do. How many children would stop believing in santa if they were told that by denying the existance of santa they were condeming themselves to eternal suffering? If that was the case I'm sure there would be billions of adults who still believe in Santa. Fear seems to be the key for gods people, keep the masses believing by using threats of a violent eternity if they don't follow the rules.

MisterEpicurus

Extinction wrote: »

Or to put a negative spin on it like religon seems to do. How many children would stop believing in santa if they were told that by denying the existance of santa they were condeming themselves to eternal suffering? If that was the case I'm sure there would be billions of adults who still believe in Santa. Fear seems to be the key for gods people, keep the masses believing by using threats of a violent eternity if they don't follow the rules.

I think about 15...

I know many people say this but is it really true? They seem to use hell as a threat for non-believers rather than a reason for themselves to believe.

Extinction

Sarky wrote: »

So the lie hasn't changed much. Big whoop.

The lie has never changed, the bible still proves that the bible is 100% correct and what greater proof could you have that the bible is right than the truth written in the bible its self.

MisterEpicurus

Extinction wrote: »

The lie has never changed, the bible still proves that the bible is 100% correct and what greater proof could you have that the bible is right than the truth written in the bible its self.

I actually wish people would stop calling it 'The Bible'.

People should call it what it really is, which is a 'Collection of Contradictory Documents'. I know it doesn't have the same catch as 'The Bible' but it's more accurate IMHO.

Extinction

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think about 15...

I know many people say this but is it really true? They seem to use hell as a threat for non-believers rather than a reason for themselves to believe.

I suppose it ring fences the believers, if you are a believer who begins to doubt you are more likely to work hard on your faith because you are afraid that even these doubts are a reason to end up in hell. The thought of stepping outside the fence to freedom is too frightening to even admit that you are having these thoughts and you call them something such as a crisis of faith and seek guidence not from someone on the outside but from someone inside the fence. I struggled for years with fear of a 'loving' god before I realised the only thing stopping me from actually admitting to myself that I didn't believe was the fear of the wrath of god's mercy. The key was admitting to myself that I was being incredibly ridiculous for a grown man. That in a nutshell is my experience of the roman catholic church I was brought up in.

Jimoslimos

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is though, evidence of the existance of jesus =/= proof, or even evidence of the existance of God.

Indeed, archaeological remains 1000 years from now may unearth an ancient train station, near Kings Cross. Historical documents may link this site to a boy called Harry Potter.

Doesn't prove he existed though or if he did, that he actually had magical powers.

Improbable

philologos wrote: »

If there wasn't a heck of a lot more historical and manuscript evidence to back up the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, and the history of the early church as described in the New Testament, I might agree with you. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient source in existence today.

It's in the light of this that I can be convinced that my views hold a lot more weight in reality than belief in Santa. I'd encourage you to research into the matter.

Can you define what you mean by authentic ancient source in this context?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

If there wasn't a heck of a lot more historical and manuscript evidence to back up the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, and the history of the early church as described in the New Testament, I might agree with you. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient source in existence today.

The issue here, as you well know, is that your "historical and manuscript evidence" to back up the bible.... IS the bible. It has long been clear that most of the philosophy course you claim to have taken went over your head but even you must be able to identify the problem with this.

There is probably better evidence for the existence of Santa than Jesus.... or at least that is to say for the St. Nicholas that Santa is often connected to.

Mintoz

The point of the Santa Claus story is to teach children to value truth. To teach them, not to believe in something because it makes them happy, or even be 'good', but to believe it because it's true.

Pushtrak

Mintoz wrote: »

The point of the Santa Claus story is to teach children to value truth. To teach them, not to believe in something because it makes them happy, or even be 'good', but to believe it because it's true.

Would be awesome if that were true.

Delirium

Mintoz wrote: »

The point of the Santa Claus story is to teach children to value truth. To teach them, not to believe in something because it makes them happy, or even be 'good', but to believe it because it's true.

So you never had your parents say, "be a good boy/girl or there'll be no presents from Santa" when you were a kid?

If the story is to teach kids to value truth, it must be one of the most ironic ways to teach that to kids.

Mousewar

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue here, as you well know, is that your "historical and manuscript evidence" to back up the bible.... IS the bible. It has long been clear that most of the philosophy course you claim to have taken went over your head but even you must be able to identify the problem with this.

There is probably better evidence for the existence of Santa than Jesus.... or at least that is to say for the St. Nicholas that Santa is often connected to.

Aside from the fact that the New Testament is a perfectly valid historical document (i.e. it's biased but so is everything written at that time and indeed most times), the historical figure of Jesus is referred to also in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

Jesus existed and was crucified. We know this in the same way we know of the existence of other historical figures from the period.

Gumbi

Mousewar wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue here, as you well know, is that your "historical and manuscript evidence" to back up the bible.... IS the bible. It has long been clear that most of the philosophy course you claim to have taken went over your head but even you must be able to identify the problem with this.

There is probably better evidence for the existence of Santa than Jesus.... or at least that is to say for the St. Nicholas that Santa is often connected to.

Aside from the fact that the New Testament is a perfectly valid historical document (i.e. it's biased but so is everything written at that time and indeed most times), the historical figure of Jesus is referred to also in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

Jesus existed and was crucified. We know this in the same way we know of the existence of other historical figures from the period.

Not "perfectly valid", though I generally agree, but it shouldn't be taken as fact. We compare independant historical sources in order to get a clearer, more accurate picture of what occurred. This is not the case with the Bible.

Herodotus reported a Persian army of almost 3 million at Thermopylae. This is logistically impossible, and so we dismiss it. We do, however, accept that based on his and other writings, that the battle occurred.

Mousewar

Gumbi wrote: »

I agree but it shouldn't be taken as fact. We compare independant historical sources in order to get a clearer, more accurate picture of what occurred.

Herodotus reported a Persian army of almost 3 million at Thermopylae. This is logistically impossible, and so we dismiss it. We do, however, accept that based on his and other writings, that the battle occurred.

Precisely. Of course we don't take it as fact. It's called historical-criticism and it leads us to believe that a man named Jesus existed in Judea around the start of the 1st century CE, that he was crucified, and that there was quite a hubbub about him.

And the New Testament is perfectly valid - as I said, the concept of pure unadulterated history didn't exist at the time, nor do I think it exists now. It is therefore, perfectly valid to consider it an historical document like any others of the time.

MisterEpicurus

Mousewar wrote: »

Jesus existed and was crucified. We know this in the same way we know of the existence of other historical figures from the period.

Yes - we can grant this, but how do you jump from this position to Jesus being the Son of God?

It would be stupid to jump from the conclusion "St. Nicolas existed, that much we know", to "therefore it validates the claim that Santa Clause exists".

Mousewar

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Yes - we can grant this, but how do you jump from this position to Jesus being the Son of God?

It would be stupid to jump from the conclusion "St. Nicolas existed, that much we know", to "therefore it validates the claim that Santa Clause exists".

I'm not jumping to that. I'm simply pointing out the mistake that many people make in dismissing the Bible as a valuable historical source and dismissing the existence of the historical figure of Jesus completely.

Genghiz Cohen

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Yes - we can grant this, but how do you jump from this position to Jesus being the Son of God?

It would be stupid to jump from the conclusion "St. Nicolas existed, that much we know", to "therefore it validates the claim that my particular version of Santa Clause exists".

Fixed.

Gumbi

Mousewar wrote: »

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Yes - we can grant this, but how do you jump from this position to Jesus being the Son of God?

It would be stupid to jump from the conclusion "St. Nicolas existed, that much we know", to "therefore it validates the claim that Santa Clause exists".

I'm not jumping to that. I'm simply pointing out the mistake that many people make in dismissing the Bible as a valuable historical source and dismissing the existence of the historical figure of Jesus completely.

It's riddled with contradictions, errors, seeming impossibilities, fantastic claims, and forgeries. Not to mention mistranslations galore. We must therefore be very careful how we interpret it.

Mousewar

Gumbi wrote: »

It's riddled with contradictions, errors, seeming impossibilities, fantastic claims, and forgeries. Not to mention mistranslations galore. We must therefore be very careful how we interpret it.

As is an awful lot of literature from the period. The Bible is, due to its popularity, seemingly held up as the sole possessor of these attributes. And as this specific point has revolved around the New Testament, I would point out that it has far less of those characterisitics than the OT, fantastic claims aside.

Pushtrak

Mousewar wrote: »

As is an awful lot of literature from the period. The Bible is, due to its popularity, seemingly held up as the sole possessor of these attributes.

It is nought to do with its popularity but who we are to believe is its source. We are to believe it is either the inerrant word of god, or inspired by such. Such claims would require it to be of a much higher standard than literature that do not have such claims attached.

Mousewar

Pushtrak wrote: »

It is nought to do with its popularity but who we are to believe is its source. We are to believe it is either the inerrant word of god, or inspired by such. Such claims would require it to be of a much higher standard than literature that do not have such claims attached.

Yes but you clearly don't believe that. That's fine but it's imprudent of you to let that prevent you appreciating the Bible as the valid historical document it is. Therefore, it should be treated like all other sources of the time. Its main advantage over the others, however, is that its popularity ensured its survival.

Pushtrak

Mousewar wrote: »

Yes but you clearly don't believe that. That's fine but it's imprudent of you to let that prevent you appreciating the Bible as the valid historical document it is.

What do you mean by valid in this context?

Mousewar

Pushtrak wrote: »

What do you mean by valid in this context?

It can be used to help reach historical conclusions through the same historical-critical methods that one should apply to any other sets of historical documents. In this instance, it, along with the works of Josephus, would lead any historian worth his salt to conclude that a man named Jesus, around whom a religious cult formed and who was crucified, lived in Judea during the first part of the 1st century CE.

An atheist's distaste for the Bible shouldn't lead to him dismissing it as a valid tool in discovering our past. More than any other work, it has influenced our culture hugely and deserves to be studied.

kylith

Mousewar wrote: »

Yes but you clearly don't believe that. That's fine but it's imprudent of you to let that prevent you appreciating the Bible as the valid historical document it is. Therefore, it should be treated like all other sources of the time. Its main advantage over the others, however, is that its popularity ensured its survival.

I really don't see any evidence that it's a valid historical source. It's been proven wrong on just about everything from the flood (a local innundation if anything), to the exodus (IIRC there was no record that the Israelites were ever in Egypt), to the walls of Jericho (Jericho was a ruin long before the bible claims its walls were blown down). From my internet research the closest that we can get to a historical Jesus is that some guy called Chrestus was pissing off the Romans at some point in the 1st centuary CE.

Perhaps you could post some sources for historical Jesus, and the validity of the bible as a reference book.

al28283

joseph brand wrote: »

Parents tell their children a little white lie. Probably my favourite lie.

Then we have strangers (clergy) telling people lies which affect their lives. Controlling them.

They are not lies if the people telling them consider them to be true. The clergy aren't telling lies when they preach their faith

Mousewar

kylith wrote: »

I really don't see any evidence that it's a valid historical source. It's been proven wrong on just about everything from the flood (a local innundation if anything), to the exodus (IIRC there was no record that the Israelites were ever in Egypt), to the walls of Jericho (Jericho was a ruin long before the bible claims its walls were blown down). From my internet research the closest that we can get to a historical Jesus is that some guy called Chrestus was pissing off the Romans at some point in the 1st centuary CE.

Perhaps you could post some sources for historical Jesus, and the validity of the bible as a reference book.

You're missing the point. Historical-Criticism doesn't take the claims of its source and simply see if they're right or wrong. If a story is manifestly false, it can still be examined to determine what the lies or the ignorance can tell us. For example, we can reject that Jesus was immaculately conceived but its presence in the story tells us that Matthew was aware of and influenced by pagan god cults that used a similar motif. So immediately we've learnt something.
I'm not arguing that Jesus did any of the things the NT said he did, other than that he existed and was crucified. The NT, testifies to it and Josephus testifies to it, along with a great deal of later Gnostic material. And the NT as a single source was only created much later. Really it is made up of separate texts by separate writers, all of whom testified to his existence. To that end, the NT actually represents numerous sources to his existence.

As a historian I therefore conclude he existed just I conclude that Cesar existed or Mohammad.

Gumbi

Context is key. Atheistic derision of the Bible is in the context of fantastic claims. Not claims like "the Bible references a mound/or hill that turns out to exist, therefore we can conclude that the Bible has something to offer me as a historian". That seems like a reasonable statement to me.

kylith

Mousewar wrote: »

You're missing the point. Historical-Criticism doesn't take the claims of its source and simply see if they're right or wrong. If a story is manifestly false, it can still be examined to determine what the lies or the ignorance can tell us. For example, we can reject that Jesus was immaculately conceived but its presence in the story tells us that Matthew was aware of and influenced by pagan god cults that used a similar motif. So immediately we've learnt something.
I'm not arguing that Jesus did any of the things the NT said he did, other than that he existed and was crucified. The NT, testifies to it and Josephus testifies to it, along with a great deal of later Gnostic material. And the NT as a single source was only created much later. Really it is made up of separate texts by separate writers, all of whom testified to his existence. To that end, the NT actually represents numerous sources to his existence.

As a historian I therefore conclude he existed just I conclude that Cesar existed or Mohammad.

The problem I have with Josephus is that his books were written about 60 years after the supposed cruxifiction of Christ, as were other non-christian sources. There are no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus like there are about Caesar or Mohammad; everything about him is hearsay.

It's not outside the realms of possibility that someone called Jesus (or Chrestus) became the focus of a cult, in the same way that it's not outside the realm of possibility that Cú Chulainn existed and was a great man in a fight, but that doesn't mean that An Táin is a valid historical reference document.

Knasher

Mousewar wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the New Testament is a perfectly valid historical document (i.e. it's biased but so is everything written at that time and indeed most times), the historical figure of Jesus is referred to also in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

Jesus existed and was crucified. We know this in the same way we know of the existence of other historical figures from the period.

Well, the part of Josephus' texts that mention "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and the references to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be authentic. Although they were written around 95 A.D. so it is hard to accept them as validation that Jesus existed as they would have necessarily been third hand accounts. On the other hand the references to the crucifixion are generally considered to be later modifications, it is considered that the text originally contained some reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate however.

I accept that the bible is a valid historical document (at the very least for the insights into the culture that serves as a backdrop to the events which are depicted in the bible), with probably a lot of truth in it, but there is also a lot of untruths mixed into it, and in a lot of cases we may have no way of separating the facts from the fiction. An obvious example where we can is it the whole Jesus being born in Bethlehem and Herod killing a bunch of newborn kids story. We know this part is probably fiction simply because Herod died in 4BCE, and there are no references to him either massacring newborns or is there any reason to believe that people were required to travel to their birth cities in order to register for a census. Most likely the reference is there to fulfill some old testament prophesies. We know that this is most likely fiction because there is direct evidence contradicting it, but there be a lot of other fictions which we have no way of separating out because they aren't directly contradicted. At best any historical events from the bible should be considered extremely hypothetical unless strong corroborating evidence can be found.

Mousewar

The Bible is full of dogma, fantasy, violence, and a fair amount of contradiction. If that prevents you from using it as a historical tool then you won't make much of a historian. You need to examine what the fantasies etc. tell us.

Tomk1

joseph brand wrote: »

It would be hilarious if the Vatican had to admit that it was all boll*x. Would catholics just become protestants or would they go into a deep state of shock and depression. (time and money wasted)

Interesting idea, worth thinking about.

Knasher

Mousewar wrote: »

the NT as a single source was only created much later. Really it is made up of separate texts by separate writers, all of whom testified to his existence. To that end, the NT actually represents numerous sources to his existence.

There are numerous sources for Batman. Movies, books, comics, plays, songs, video games, all written by separate writers. They doesn't constitute separate sources because they are clearly all just based on a single source, the comics. Trying to argue that the different texts should be considered separate sources is crazy because they are all based on a single story (putting aside the question of if it is historically based), which was being passed by word of mouth in the region at the time.

Pushtrak

Mousewar wrote: »

The Bible is full of dogma, fantasy, violence, and a fair amount of contradiction. If that prevents you from using it as a historical tool then you won't make much of a historian. You need to examine what the fantasies etc. tell us.

I don't think being a historian is the objective of the majority here. I'd suggest if there were a majority here it would be a desire towards secularism. A historical perspective is great, but when we have people today citing their holy books to back up their prejudices and bigotries, I think there is a more important discussion to be had than the historical significance or relevance of the bible.