It is hardly any value to ponder great movements in history with the lens of our individualistic and pluralistic culture. We post-modernize them, especially ancient history, making them either irrelevant or elementary in truth. Accepting the idea that we’ve evolved in society, in architect, in our understanding of morality and of course in religion, which has led to things such as religious pluralism. The problem seems impossible to address since truth is not a way to affect change anymore, removing any basis of reasoning with one another.

Dr. Timothy Tennent, Professor of World Christianity at Asbury Theological Seminary, describes this downslide…

“The Grand narrative of Christian redemption is being replaced by thousands of smaller, personal narratives driven by human autonomy, market-driven consumer preferences, and a growing, narcissistic distrust of the very notion of revelation. Truth with a capital T has been quietly traded in for a much smaller view of truth – truth as personal preference, i.e., what works for me. The revelation of God in scripture has gradually come to be seen as nothing more than the projection of human hopes and fears, an extension of anthropology, not theology.”

So in other words, religious origins are just a thing in the past. We can study them but they hold no real value in what they are saying, it’s mainly just another plate of beliefs in the religious buffet we put together. They are not relevant and not necessarily true but who are we to object if it works for someone else. But can all of them be equal in function without tampering with dogma?

D.A Carson, in his book, ‘The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism’, writes that the definition of tolerance has changed from being tolerant of the person to now the ideas of the person. Which makes sense of this religious pluralism that is now accepted in our culture. Carson continues,

“But if any religion claims that in some measure other religions are wrong, a line has been crossed and resentment is immediately stirred up: pluralism (in the third sense) has been challenged. Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated.”

This is exactly where Christianity lies. If it’s true it violates those who have different beliefs. So forget about it being true, it either has to fit in the pool of religious choice or it has to be removed from our culture. But Christianity isn’t something that just works for people, its more deeper and historical than that. Understanding Christianity’s central theme and purpose is Jesus Christ.

C.S. Lewis writes about the identity of Jesus,

“Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

So how do I view this daunting figure in history as not relevant to my life now? Because any reasonable, intelligent person could not and will not put this man Jesus, of the first century, of Nazareth, born of the woman Mary, under the reign of Herod the Great, sentenced to death by Governor Pilate, in the same category as Santa Clause. I say that with the assumption that he exists of course. So let’s look at some folks in history that help us build a case that shows the Jesus of the Bible actually did exist. I’ll start with an important individual in history that didn’t have a Christian bias and who would not be swayed by myths and rumors of the land of his time.

Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 120 A.D.)

Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman Emperors. He was a Senator under Emperor Vespasian (who we will study later) and known as the chief orator of his day, a well known practice. This would make him very influential and persuasive in a time where most historians and writers wrote with a highly subjective perception with a purpose to grab the reader into his own views. This being said we should take lightly on reading all of his work. So what is this man best known for? His two historical books, Histories and Annals. These two, meant to be one volume, covered Roman History from the death of Augustus (First Emperor of Rome) to the death of Emperor Domitian (14-96 AD). His writings mention key events and individuals who highlight the New Testament. But he also provides one of the earliest non-Christian references to the execution of Jesus. This Jesus, in which Tacitus wrote, was sentenced to death under the hands of Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius. This Jesus also preceded the Christian movement, which Tacitus regarded as a ‘mischievous superstition’ and believed that Christians were guilty of horrendous crimes.

He writes, in Annals 15.44:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Here you can see that Tacitus wasn’t very enthusiastic about the Christian movement of his time. But even though these words are not in favor of Christianity it gives us more parallels for the consistency and accuracy of biblical accounts.
Tacitus verifies:
* Jesus existed
* Jesus was the founder of Christianity
* Jesus was put to death by Pilate (the extreme death, at this time known as the perfected Crucifixion)
* Christianity originated in Judea
* Christianity spread to Rome
* They were persecuted and handed over to brutal executions (Jesus Predicted before his execution)
All of these confirm what the scriptures read. Tacitus also helps us with some background in the New Testament. In the mid 60’s, the Apostle Peter encourages the church to not be surprised but to rejoice by the fiery trials that has been surrounded them.

1 Peter 4:12-13:

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

The Apostle Peter speaks as if Christ had forewarned him about this type of persecution. In fact, he is only repeating what Christ had predicted to the apostles on the Mount of Olives in the synoptic gospels. So what does Tacitus have to do with Peter’s letter? In his Annals, Tacitus describes Emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians, and that of a cover up. July of 64 the city of Rome caught on fire for almost a week, ravaging cities, and the people blamed Nero of setting the city on fire. Tacitus writes that Nero in defense blames the Christians of this account then uses it to kill them off.

Annals 15.44:

“Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

Tacitus may have never known the importance in what he was recording but it plays a huge role in understanding biblical accuracy.
For these Christians this was the only way to be human. Were they just unlearned peasants that couldn’t grasped real truth? Or did they actually find out what the grand purpose of existence really is?