HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH??? THE FIRST CHURCH JESUS WAS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE, IT WAS CREATED BY JESUS, ITS TRUE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN CORRUPT & IS A PAGAN RELIGION. BUT SO HAS EVERY MAN MADE RELIGION HAS BECOME CORRUPT , I NEVER BELIVED IN A MAN GOD ( JESUS ) BORN BY A VIRGIN THATS A REAL SAD JOKE THAT POOR IGNORANT UNEDUCATED PEOPLE BELIEVE IN, JESUS WAS A MYTH CREATED BY A FEW JEWS THE FABLE HAS GROWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES
First, I’m thankful that the courageous, unsigned critic who wrote the complaint above took the time to read pages from Gospel Gazette Online. I hope that at least a residue of biblical truth rubbed off on him as he waded through the text of one or more Gospel lessons. Second, it has been long conceded that typing everything in all caps in email posts is equivalent to screaming or yelling what you have to say; it may be that the author of the critique above was cut to the heart with the Gospel (Acts 7:54) instead of pricked in the heart by the Gospel (Acts 2:37). Third, since Jesus and the first universally recognized Catholic pope lived 600 years apart and the church began about 50 days after the death of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church is not attributable to Jesus Christ, but rather the church about which one reads in Acts 2 is traceable to Jesus. Fourth, that the writer above does not believe in the virgin birth of Christ betrays his lack of regard for both testaments of the Bible, since the virgin birth of the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14) and confirmed in the New Testament (Matthew 1:18-23). The querist above is hardly a religionist in a biblical sense, then, and actually may be an atheist, in which case his credentials are suspect respecting his assessment of most anything Christian (or counterfeit). Fifth, many of those who have the utmost confidence in the Scriptures respecting the virgin birth are among the most highly educated and studious persons anywhere. The phrase “poor ignorant uneducated people” amounts to no more than a baseless slur.
Sixth, anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is woefully uninformed and, again, hardly in a position to enlighten anyone respecting the church Jesus built versus man-made churches. That Jesus Christ was a historical person is verified abundantly from secular history from times contemporary with Jesus onward, including by hostile witnesses. For instance, Tacitus, who lived from about A.D. 56-117 wrote in his Annals:
Nero fabricated scapegoats and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome.
Tacitus was well educated, part of the Roman upper class and a public servant under several emperors. He did not deny the existence of Jesus Christ, though he did not endorse either the Christ or Christianity.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor in about A.D. 110 wrote unfavorably about Christians and their founder Christ. Suetonius around A.D. 120 recounted history from the Roman annals about Claudius expelling Jews from Rome because of disturbances over Christ, which corresponds to Acts 18:2. About A.D. 178, Celsus defamed Jesus of Nazareth as an illegitimate offspring between Mary and a Roman soldier, which at least doesn’t endeavor to deny the obvious, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical person. Jewish Rabbis whose work between A.D. 200 and 300 resulted in the production of their Talmud had nothing good to say about Jesus of Nazareth, but acknowledged that he was a real person. Josephus in his Antiquities observed that Jesus was a real person who was viewed by his followers as the promised Christ or Messiah of Old Testament prophecy; Josephus was Jewish, but wrote histories for the Roman Empire. Both as a Jew and as a Roman historian, Josephus himself was not a believer in Christianity or its founder, Jesus Christ. Also, consider that over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist, which either directly or indirectly substantiate secular history’s acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as a historical person. These manuscripts are older than most other historical writings on which we depend to know ancient history.
From the oldest histories, which exceed what were mentioned here, through the present, secular histories that are independent of religion and often antagonistic toward it, do not make the obvious error of denying the historicity of Jesus Christ. Empty aspersions regarding the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth are hollow, indeed. Beyond secular history, the Bible has proven itself historically reliable and without error in every area that lends itself to independent inspection, so that even those things it addresses that cannot be examined in a laboratory are credible (e.g., doctrine).
Consult the following for extensive information regarding the historical Christ and a substantial bibliography of additional resources. Kyle Butt, “The Historical Christ Fact or Fiction?” Reason & Revelation. (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press) January, 2000, p. 1ff.
