Santa Clause

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Simona25 said:
John832, can you understand the fact that the answer of Jesus Christ to the apostle's question "Why do you speak to them in parables?" is scandalous on so many levels?

Some of the reasons why the answer is unusual and unexpected is because:

1. the use of parables as didactic method was very spread (even before Jesus Christ). So, when they ask Him "But why do you speak in parables?" is as if talking in parables was very unusual, when in reality, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Parables were common indeed. IF they weren't, the disciples would have said, "What kind of words are you speaking?" Instead of, "Why do you speak in parables?" They weren't claiming that He was being unusual; in fact, they were wondering why He didn't speak plainly!

2. the parable was used in order to clarify something difficult to understand, not to make it even harder to understand. The fact that Jesus Christ hides, instead of revealing is very unusual for the common use of the parable.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The parable would clarify for those who had ears to hear. But it would be confusion to those who were only waiting to be fed with physical bread (or, to put it more plainly for you, to have the Lord as their physical King now).

3. there are more reasons why the answer of Christ is scandalous, but I'll stop here. This has nothing to do with the parable, but with Christ's mission on earth. We know that He wants everybody to be saved, and yet, from His response, you get idea that He is discriminating. But is He? This is already the subject for another thread. Why did Christ answered that He talks to them in parables so that they hear and don't understand, they see and don't perceive?
Click to expand...

He is discriminating. His sheep hear His voice and know Him. Those that do not hear His voice are not His sheep. It's that simple. He speaks the language that His elect will understand so that they alone are able to receive. God does indeed will that all flesh is saved, however, we know also that God wills to destroy all wickedness in the lake of fire. Why call God scandalous for giving the keys to the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven to only those whom He permits? Or will you go out and hand over copies of the keys to your house to every person, even those you know to be destructive, and say, "You are all welcome into my house. Relax, or destroy, it's your choice." Therefore the gates of Hell will not prevail against the body of Christ.
 
john832 said:
I frankly don't care what the Extreme Orient did, rather what Christ plainly says, He used parables so that most would NOT understand, see post #66.
Click to expand...

...well, that's what I said.
I told you what parable is from a philological point of view. If you don't care about the context and the environment in which Jesus Christ talked in parables, you won't understand why He reversed the use of it.
 
faroukfarouk said:
Mary herself says: 'My soul doth magnify the Lord' (Luke 2.46), and she refers to 'God my Savior' (Luke 2.47). She herself is evidently not a mediator of grace to the sinner; she needed a Savior herself, though highly favored also.
Click to expand...

And how does that change the fact that all generations will call her blessed? What does my signature say that it's so offending to you?
 
tarzan said:
Wrong. The parable would clarify for those who had ears to hear. But it would be confusion to those who were only waiting to be fed with physical bread (or, to put it more plainly for you, to have the Lord as their physical King now).
Click to expand...

Do I have to go over and over again and say the same things until you get it? When I speak about the common use of the parable, I mean the way the common teachers (so, I am not including Christ here) used it. What is so hard to understand?
Christ does it all backwards. He is not a soft preacher. The same message will be understood differently, depending on the heart of the one that hears it (probably).

tarzan said:
God does indeed will that all flesh is saved, however, we know also that God wills to destroy all wickedness in the lake of fire. Why call God scandalous for giving the keys to the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven to only those whom He permits?
Click to expand...

That's why I said that at the first sight, Christ seems scandalous:

tarzan said:
He is discriminating. His sheep hear His voice and know Him. Those that do not hear His voice are not His sheep. It's that simple. He speaks the language that His elect will understand so that they alone are able to receive.
Click to expand...

I don't see it this way. When Christ says that He talks to them in parables so that they don't understand, I believe, that means that He is there for everybody, but not for anybody. And that doesn't depend on Him, but on us, the listeners. Christ comes with answers, but we also must have questions and be available for Him. He is not giving what is holy to the dogs, nor is He casting pearls before swine. In other words, where Christ does not sense a receptivity from the listeners, He does not give.
 
You mean Santa's not real? (goes and cries in the corner...)

But seriously, we do play the Santa game at our house every year. It's no different than Patty Cake, a game that's fun for little ones but that they outgrow as they get older. But as soon as they get old enough to start asking too many questions about it (where I would have to practice genuine deceit in order to keep up the ruse) then that's how I know they are old enough to know the truth, which is:

1. There IS a Santa Claus, and
2. I am him (in our house, anyway.) My kids are both young, but when the time comes, I will explain that moms and dads are the Santas in their respective households (among those that celebrate Christmas in this way.) This will help explain why "Santa" never brings kids anything that their own parents couldn't have afforded to get them anyway.

I don't see how this could do any permanent damage to kids, as long as they keep getting presents. My mom flat out told me one day that Santa and the Easter Bunny were fictional characters. I went through a brief period of being mad at myself for believing it so deeply (which I quickly got over) but I never held anything against my parents. As I said above, as long as I kept getting presents, I was good.
 
I'd have to say that Santa Claus is a pagan cultural icon. His character has been developed over the centuries to the man he is. From St. Nick of Myrna, a bishop known for his charity, to the combining traits of Odin who is associate with the feats Yule and Britain's folkloric Father Christmas, to his image as portrayed by Thomas Nast in the poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas", his name and the naughty/nice list comes from the song "Santa Claus comes to town." That was written by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie in 1934. But Santa Claus became immortal after Frank Baum, most notable for his Oz books, wrote The Life and Times of Santa Claus in 1902.
 
Simona25 said:
...well, that's what I said.
I told you what parable is from a philological point of view. If you don't care about the context and the environment in which Jesus Christ talked in parables, you won't understand why He reversed the use of it.
Click to expand...

And I was simply stating what a parable is from a Biblical point of view.
 
Simona25 said:
The fact that Jesus Christ used the parable in a reversed way does not change what a parable is.
Click to expand...

Nor do the ideas of men change the fact that Jesus used parables for this reason...

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
 
I am Santa Clause.....Santa Clause is broke:o
Guess that means the kids were bad again this year
 
john832 said:
Nor do the ideas of men change the fact that Jesus used parables for this reason...Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Click to expand...
Wow...do you actually read what I say? Where did "men's ideas" try to change Christ's reason of using parables?
 
Simona25 said:
The parable is an allegorical story used with a didactic purpose (very spread in the Oriental world). Whenever the disciples dealt with a difficult text or a difficult concept, the master, instead of using an argumentative speech or established definitions, would rather illustrate the concept through a parable (something like "You don't understand? Let me put it for you this way, let me tell you a story"). So, a parable's purpose is to explain something abstract with the mean of concrete situations put in stories.
Click to expand...

Simona25 said:
No. The parables are used in order to clarify something that is difficult to understand. The fact that Jesus Christ used them with the exact opposite purpose is something extra-ordinary for the common use of parable, and also scandalous (might I say) at the first sight because we all know that Christ came for everyone. Everything that Jesus Christ did was against the common use.
Click to expand...

Simona25 said:
Jesus Christ did reverse the use of the parable, just like john832 said. But that doesn't change the fact that the Extreme Orient used the parable to explain an abstract notion.
I'm sorry for derailing your thread, but I can't help not to share with you how original Jesus Christ actually was (and still is :) ).
Click to expand...

I guess not.
 
Ihsomiet said:
I'd have to say that Santa Claus is a pagan cultural icon. His character has been developed over the centuries to the man he is. From St. Nick of Myrna, a bishop known for his charity, to the combining traits of Odin who is associate with the feats Yule and Britain's folkloric Father Christmas, to his image as portrayed by Thomas Nast in the poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas", his name and the naughty/nice list comes from the song "Santa Claus comes to town." That was written by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie in 1934. But Santa Claus became immortal after Frank Baum, most notable for his Oz books, wrote The Life and Times of Santa Claus in 1902.
Click to expand...
I've heard it told much differently.

Since at least Roman times gifts have been given on December 25th, so that much is an old tradition. That doesn't make it wrong. In the Middle Ages gifts were still given but in an orphanage in France the nuns felt sorry for their charges and one year concocted the story that on Christmas Eve Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of children, stopped by with gifts for the children living there. The nuns continued in this pleasant adult conspiracy, for the love of the children, and the custom spread. December 25th may originally have been the feast day of Saturnalia, but Santa Clause began as a Christian tradition, not a pagan one, and I for one think it is beautiful.
 
I never believed in Santa Claus but I had a wild imagination, still do. I don't think I missed anything but I wouldn't tell others not to believe he's real.
 
Pozessed said:
Do you promote Santa Clause in your household?

Isn't that a sin?
Click to expand...

Since you're not a Christian, I guess you don't believe in sin.

So... as far as YOU'RE concerned... NOTHING I do could be sin.

Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back