Is Christianity True #2

Could Christianity have been invented? Could it have been made up as a fiction in light of those dates? From 64 A.D. to 30 A.D., could it have been made up during that time? The answer is no.

No, that's not possible. This is the Truth Pulpit with Don Green, Founding Pastor of Truth Community Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm Bill Wright. Here's a question for you. Is Christianity true? Well, today as Don continues teaching God's people God's Word, he'll wrap up his powerful look at this monumentally important question.

Here's Don right now to begin today's lesson on the Truth Pulpit. If Christianity is a fiction, there must be a date at which it was invented. There must have been a time when it was invented, when someone made it up. Christianity has been around for a very long time, a very, very long time. There are just thousands and thousands and thousands of pages in modern books that are traceable back to the second and third century.

That says something. It means that it couldn't have been invented after that. Let's pick a random date and see if that works to establish a time at which Christianity could have been first invented.

OK, we'll assume that we can find a place where it was started and we'll just work our way back. So as Ian Murray does, we choose a random date to see if this works 200 A.D., 200 A.D. Let's go back 1800 years ago and see if that might possibly work for a time when Christianity could have been invented. Well, what we're going to find is, is that Christianity could not possibly have been invented in that time frame.

That's utterly, utterly impossible. By that time in 200 A.D., the gospel, the Christian message had spread from Jerusalem to Spain, to Egypt, perhaps to Britain, and also to the Far East. As I said, there are many written documents from the second century talking about Christianity and Christian issues. There are Christian statements and there are symbols, and this is very significant, Christian symbols carved into the walls of the catacombs in the city of Rome. What is a catacomb? A catacomb is like an underground cemetery. And the authoritative Oxford Classical Dictionary says this at page 302, page 302 in the edition that I have in my library.

It says this, the official, and just stay with me here, I don't want anyone falling off the boat, I don't want to have to, you know, rescue anyone out of the water here, so just stay in the boat and stay with me, okay? Quoting the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the official organization by the church of public catacombs, mainly for the poor of Rome's Christian community, began in approximately 200 A.D. Let me say that again. The official organization by the church of public catacombs, mainly for the poor of Rome's Christian community, began in approximately 200 A.D. Why is that so very significant?

Think with me. If the city officials needed a burial place for large numbers of Christians in order to establish a place where they could all be put, then the origin of Christianity must predate 200 A.D. by a significant amount of time. You can't make it up in 200 A.D. and simultaneously need large burial grounds for professing Christians. This is unquestioned secular history from authoritative source, and so it couldn't have started in 200 A.D.

There were too many people. There had to be time for those people to become Christians to live and to die in large numbers in order to justify the need for such a place. It would be like, you know, 1500 years from now, somebody suggesting that the United States was a fiction and then having to explain away Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C. If America had never existed, why did they need all of these graves for their soldiers and their public dignitaries?

The cemeteries point to a prior existence of the organization, the entity. And so 200 A.D. doesn't work. Christianity has to be older than that just based on the historical record.

And so we have to keep going back further. Remember, what we're doing here is we're pretending that Christianity is a fiction and we're just looking for a place where it could have started in order to explain everything that followed afterwards. Well, as we keep working our way backwards in time, we keep finding evidence of the existence of Christianity. We keep finding it in places where it's being affirmed and testified to by secular authorities, so that in 112 A.D., nearly a century further back from the Roman catacombs, there is a letter written by a man named Pliny, spelled P-L-I-N-Y, P-L-I-N-Y, Pliny.

He was a Roman governor in an area of modern day Turkey, northern Turkey, Asia Minor. And in this letter from 112 A.D., we find Pliny saying this. He says, Christians are people who were wont on the appointed day to meet before it was light and to sing with one another a hymn to Christ as God. In 112, there were sufficient numbers of Christians that a Roman governor was aware of them and was aware of their religious practice. If Christianity was a fiction, it had to significantly predate that in order to be explained on the presupposition that it's a fiction and isn't really true, isn't really historically rooted. But you keep going back further and further, you find this.

And again, this is extraordinarily well known and uncontested. A Roman historian named Tacitus, T-A-C-I-T-U-S, Tacitus, writes about the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. A.D. 64. And this is Rome, far removed from the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 64, mind you. Tacitus says that the Roman Emperor Nero set the city on fire and he singled out Christians as the scapegoat. He blamed the burning of the city of Rome on the Christians that were in Rome. And Tacitus writes this, and this is a more extended quotation. Speaking about the Christians, he says this, Nero punished them with the most exquisite sufferings. The author of that sect was Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius was punished with death by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Tacitus continues, but the pestilent superstition, which for the present was suppressed, broke out afresh, not only in Judea, but in Rome. See, Tacitus called Christianity a superstition.

He wasn't writing to affirm that it was true, but he was reporting the historical reality. There were all these Christians around that Nero was able to turn into a scapegoat for the burning of Rome to escape his own responsibility for the arson. Tacitus goes on to describe the sufferings of these Christians. I've spoken about this in the past.

It's horrific. Tacitus says, first, then, those who confessed were apprehended, and next, by their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of the burning of Rome as of the hatred of mankind. These were made a sport in their death. End quote.

Here's the point. Contemporary Roman historian explaining a massive event on the par of 9-11 for the United States of America, writing and recording the history of what happened in the burning of Rome, says that the Roman emperor knew of a religious group of Christians, and he blamed them for it. Now, whatever else we think about Nero and the sufferings of the Christians and anything else that could be attributed to that, understand that the historical record is speaking of a vast number of Christians in the city of Rome in the year 64.

In the year 64. And so this information from Pliny and Tacitus on the spread of Christianity helps us date the beginning of Christianity. For the faith to be so widespread, geographically speaking, in an era without modern transportation, mind you, for the faith to be so widespread by 64 A.D., its origin has to predate 64 A.D. even more. Whether it's true or false, whether it's true or false on the presupposition that we're talking about here, the origin of Christianity must have occurred close to the time of Christ himself. And you know, when Christ was crucified, by most Christian estimates, A.D. 30, 35 years prior to the burning of Rome, Christ was crucified. And so we've gone from a possible 2,000 year window to say that Christianity is fiction. In looking to find the date when the fiction started, if Christianity is fiction, we've eliminated 1,800 years and we've narrowed the window to a 200 year period at the start of the modern era.

As we read on, we narrowed it down to 112 years and then to 64 years. And then when we realize that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, then we're left with such a tiny window of time for this whole fiction to have been created and to institute it and to spread throughout the world. Well, let's just keep asking our questions here.

We're going to come back to scripture soon here. Could Christianity have been invented? Could it have been made up as a fiction in light of those dates? From 64 A.D. to 30 A.D., could it have been made up during that time? Well, again, the answer is no.

No, that's not possible. How is it that the disciples of Christ preached as they did from the time of his resurrection or his alleged resurrection? In light of the timing of his resurrection, how could the disciples of Christ preach as they did?

Because, beloved, their argument in front of their contemporary audience was based on one simple fact. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was crucified at Calvary, and he was the Christ. And let's look at some scriptures here to help us see this and to see the emphasis that is placed on the resurrection. Let's go to the Gospel of John, first of all. The Gospel of John, chapter 20. John, chapter 20.

This is so magnificent. John, chapter 20, beginning in verse 24. Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Christ, called Didymus, which means the twin, was not with the other disciples when Jesus first came to them. And so they come back to Thomas. They come back to Thomas, telling Thomas this in verse 25. They were saying to him, We have seen the Lord.

But he said to them, Unless I see in his hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. After eight days, his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, Peace be with you. Then he said to Thomas, Reach here with your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.

Now going on in verse 30, Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book. But these have been written, so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. What the Apostle John did with this gospel is he reported objective historical information, he recorded the words of Christ, he recorded the miracles of Christ, and pointed to objective historical fact, an objective historical record, and called upon men and women, called upon his readers to believe in Christ.

These things have been written in order that you may believe. And the climax of his gospel is the climax of the resurrection. Thomas is believing not on the basis of his internal feelings or his internal opinions about the matter, he believed in response to something outside of himself. He saw Jesus Christ living with mortal wounds in his body, proving to Thomas through his physical senses that Jesus was really alive and was really resurrected.

And on that basis, on the basis of the resurrection, John calls his readers to believe. Now, go over to the book of Acts chapter 2. Acts chapter 2. In Acts chapter 2, verse 29, we see the Apostle Peter preaching on the day of Pentecost, and he's coming to the grand climax of his message.

But actually, as I think about it, let's go back a little further to verse 22. Acts chapter 2, verse 22. Peter is preaching to men who were contemporary eyewitnesses of the facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They were contemporary eyewitnesses.

That is critical. He says, men of Israel, listen to these words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs to which God performed through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know. He's telling these contemporaries who had rejected and crucified Christ, he is telling them and reminding them of historical facts that occurred in the immediate past, which they themselves knew.

A hostile audience knew the facts of which Peter was speaking. Peter goes on and explains the theological, the spiritual significance of it in verse 23. He says, this man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death. But God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for him to be held in its power.

Drop down to verse 29 now. Brethren, I may confidently say to you, regarding the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seek one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus, God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore, having been exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says, the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Listen, Peter could never have said these things if the facts weren't true, because his immediate contemporary audience would have known that it was a fiction. Peter never would have preached such magnificent facts as the death and resurrection of Christ to an audience that would have known that it was false if indeed Christianity is a fiction. Peter was able to preach like he did because it was true, because these facts happened, and because his audience knew that it was true. They could not refute it. They could not deny the factual accuracy of what Peter was saying to them. And the result of that is that Peter had led them to the truth. He had led them to the fact that Christianity, as we call it today, is true. It's the way things really are. It's accurate. It's what really happened, and it's the truth and the revelation of God as found in his written Word and in the person of Jesus Christ. Here's the point. Is it possible that this is fiction?

No, it's utterly impossible. It is utterly impossible for the apostles to have preached a fiction to those that would have been able to immediately reject it and know that it was false. Rather, instead, they asserted historical facts that the audience could not refute and therefore cried out, what must we do in response to what you have shown to us to be conclusively true?

Said, know this for certain. This is not a matter of opinion. Nothing about the waves of philosophy in the intervening 2,000 years change what the historical facts are. And the fact that we live in an age that has such a distorted, depraved mind that questions the very principle of whether objective truth exists or not, the fact that God has allowed men to develop such a depraved mind does not change the historical reality of what actually happened and what is true.

We measure what is true by Scripture, by the Lord Jesus Christ, not according to the tenets of modern philosophy. Acts 4, verse 8, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, they could not deny that. And that's why there is no time frame for this to have been made up, because you find in the aftermath of the resurrection of Christ the apostles appealing to the contemporary knowledge of their hostile audience. If they could have refuted it, they would have. They couldn't, and so they didn't. And so there is no time for this to have been made up.

That's the point. And so, verse 10, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.

As they spoke to the truth of the historical facts, they drew out what those facts meant. There is one and one only Savior of men. It is Jesus Christ.

There is no other man, there is no other mediator with God, there is no one else who can offer forgiveness of sins except Christ himself. Every other religion is false. Christianity is true. That's the significance of the biblical testimony. With Peter, we confidently say, as the Spirit bears witness to his word, as the Spirit bears witness to the Lord Jesus Christ, and as the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God, we confidently say with Peter that Jesus Christ died, that Jesus Christ was buried, and that God raised him from the dead, and he is Lord in Christ, and that is irrefutable truth. There is no other name under heaven which is given by which you must be saved, beloved.

These things are not a matter of personal opinion. This is the most sober truth. And friends, we're out of time for today. We're thankful that you've chosen to spend some of your very valuable time studying God's holy word with us. I'm Bill Wright, and we'll see you next time as Dawn Green continues teaching God's people God's Word from the truth pulpit.