What Can We Believe About Christmas? Weighing the Evidence, pt. 2

If an atheist told you that Jesus’ bones had been found, would you still be a Christian?

How about if, instead of an atheist, it was someone at Main Street who told you; would you repudiate your Christianity?

What if I, as your pastor came and told you, and Pastor Dave, Mitch Arnold, and Dave Hunt came in to back me up; would you still be a Christian?

How about if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone had found the bones of Jesus Christ, proving that He hadn’t resurrected, would that do anything to your faith?

If it doesn’t change anything for you, then I would encourage you to figure out what the basis for your belief is, because it might be based more on wishful thinking than in fact. The truth is that nobody is going to find Jesus’ bones, because He rose from the grave. But this underscores the importance of the evidence we have that helps to prove what we believe is true.

Nazareth, Bethlehem, December 25th, Quirinius, a Roman census, no room in the inn, a baby born in a stable to a virgin mother… can we really be expected to believe any of this stuff?

When we evaluate truth claims, it’s important to first figure out what the claims are. What I mean by that is, it’s important that we actually look at what the Bible says, rather than simply relying on tradition. For example, what would you say if someone from the Way argued that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. It’s obvious that He was, isn’t it?

You know what I would say? "Yeah, so what?"

Let’s see, where is that in the Bible? Ummm, Matthew doesn’t say anything about the timing, other than that wise men came during King Herod’s reign. Luke is a little more helpful, telling us it was while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Neither Mark nor John say anything at all on the subject. In fact, around 200 AD, scholars concluded that Jesus was born on May 20. Others argued for dates in April and March. It wasn’t a major issue, because early Christians emphasized the Epiphany on January 6, marking Christ’s baptism, rather than His birth. It wasn’t until AD 385 that Pope Julius I declared December 25 as the day to celebrate Christ’s birth. One reason he chose that date was to challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturn, a celebration which was characterized by immorality and social disorder.

Does it make a big difference whether we celebrate Jesus’ birth on December 25 or May 20? Well, it doesn’t seem to bother us too badly to celebrate Presidents’ Day on a Monday or Mothers’ Day on a Sunday, even though the date changes yearly. And it wasn’t as if Christmas was just integrated into the pagan celebration – it was meant to replace it.

So what are some other critical questions that are asked about Christmas? Some question Luke’s account, wondering if archeology supports or undermines his statements. Why is that important? Well, think about this: Mormonism hinges upon the acceptance that Joseph Smith found some golden plates with special writing on them, that an angel named Moroni translated them for him, and that the angel then took the plates with him. Historically, Mormonism holds that long ago, a man named Lehi migrated from Jerusalem to Central America, and that within 30 years, they built a copy of Solomon's Temple. Then the people challenged the authority of Nephi (one of the first generation Central Americans from Jerusalem), so God cursed them, changing their skin color.

There is no evidence whatsoever that supports these claims, and indeed, there is evidence that shows that Joseph Smith’s version of history didn’t happen. So then, are we supposed to believe these things just because a Mormon holy book says them?

When we deal with skeptics, they will not accept "because the Bible says so" as proof. You and I accept the Bible as God’s Word, but the outside world does not – they need outside proof that of its credibility.

So what about Luke’s claims? Do they hurt or help his credibility? For years, scholars claimed that Luke didn’t know what he was talking about, in part because in Luke 3:1, he referred to Lysanias being tetrarch of Abilene in about 27 AD, but everyone knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but rather the ruler of Chalcis some fifty years earlier! This is where archaeology came in; archaeologists found an inscription from the time of Tiberius, from AD 14-37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch of Abila near Damascus – just as Luke had written. It turned out that there were two people named Lysanias!

So how about the census? Can we really believe that the government would force its citizens all to their hometowns to be counted? Well, a Roman government order was found from AD 104 which says the following: Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.

Another papyrus from 48 AD indicates that the entire family was involved in the census.
So what about the people involved? Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and Quirinius didn’t begin ruling Syria until 6 AD. The math just doesn’t make sense! Except that an archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name Quirinius on it in a special kind of writing, a kind that places Quirinius as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod. Meaning that there were two people named Quirinius.

How about Nazareth? In his article Where Jesus Never Walked, atheist Frank Zindler notes that Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament or by Paul or even by first-century Jewish historian Josephus. In fact, no ancient historian even mentions Nazareth until the fourth century. How can we believe it even existed?

Well, after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, priests were sent to various locations, and archaeologists have found a list, written in Aramaic, of where the priests and their families were sent. Guess where one of them was sent? The small town of Nazareth… Archaeologists have found first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth as well, and thus are able to outline its boundaries – they determined that it was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period, a place of only about sixty acres and a maximum population of about 480 at the beginning of the first century. No wonder people grumbled, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

The fact is that even by relying on ancient non-Christian sources, we would still be able to know the following facts:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher.
2. Many people believed that He performed healings and exorcisms.
3. Some people believed that He was the Messiah.
4. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders.
5. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.
6. Despite His shameful death, His followers, who believed He was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64
7. All kinds of people from the cities and countryside – men and women – worshiped Him as God.

With this in mind, what can we believe about Christmas? We can believe that the historical Jesus Christ was born just as Scriptures report, and that many people believed in Him. So the question we need to wrestle with is this: was Jesus really the Messiah?

Note: my main source for the archaeological facts in this sermon is Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christmas. The "bones of Jesus" proposition came from a lecture by Dr. Jerrry Walls in Introduction to Christian Philosophy. The Mormonism material came from Ruth A. Tucker's book Another Gospel.