“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV)
Picture, if you will, living at a time when it is illegal to own or even quote an English translation of the Bible. In 1526 in England, those who owned an English copy of the Bible were under the threat of execution by order of the king of England himself. Many Christians today are not aware of the incredible sacrifices that were made for an English translation of the Bible to end up in their hands today.
Knowing what it cost others and how willingly they made those sacrifices is inspiring and motivates me to treasure my Bible more dearly. William Tyndale was one such man who gave up so much out of devotion to God and love for others. Prior to Tyndale translating the New Testament and much of the Old Testament into English, only scholars in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew could read and understand Scripture. Everyone else had to rely on their bishops to tell them what the Bible said.
This is hard for us in the 21st century to wrap our minds around, because today we have the Bible at our fingertips, a mere click or two away. But Scripture foretold times when there would be a famine—”not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11, ESV).
Tyndale had studied Greek and Hebrew and knew the treasure of having a relationship with God based on Holy Scripture. He knew that Scripture was not merely the words of wise men, but the very words of the living God, which could be translated into any language (1 Thessalonians 2:13). His heart burned with a passion for the common people of his day to experience the Word of God in the same way.
At one point, a highly esteemed Latin scholar told Tyndale, “It would be better to be without God’s laws than without the pope’s.”
Tyndale courageously responded, “I defy the pope and all his laws! In fact, if God spares my life, I intend to make it possible for a common farmer, a plowman, to know more of the Scripture than you do!”
He spent the next ten years working tirelessly across Europe, fleeing persecution from one nation to the next, translating the Bible into the language even a plowman could read and understand. Tyndale was eventually betrayed and imprisoned. Although he couldn’t do the translation work in prison, he continued to preach the saving message about the crucified and risen Jesus. In fact, the jailer, the jailer’s daughter, and other members of his household surrendered their lives to the Lord Jesus.
Finally, on October 6, 1536, Tyndale was taken out of his prison, strangled to death, and his body was burned as a warning to all who would participate in his Bible-translating rebellion. Just before dying, William Tyndale prayed aloud, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes!” That prayer was answered three years later when the king of England decreed that Tyndale’s New Testament be placed in every church in England!
It’s impossible to calculate the value of having God’s Word so readily available today.
When I hear about Tyndale’s devotion and sacrifice that led to me having a Bible in my hands, I am deeply moved and compelled to treasure these words and never take them for granted. I hope you feel the same way. God has spoken. And He intends for us to know Him through His Word.
“In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches. I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.” (Psalm 119:14-16, ESV)
I pray that just because the Bible is so accessible in our day, it would not be overlooked as the precious gift that it is.
Have thoughts on this post? I’d love to hear from you!
From the very birth of Christianity, the church has always believed in the virgin conception of Jesus Christ. It is part and parcel of the gospel message. It is an essential, not merely incidental, component for understanding who Jesus is.
While some skeptics would have us believe that Jesus’ virgin conception and divine nature were late inventions by the church, nothing could be farther from the truth. From the earliest sources on the life of Jesus, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), we have the testimony of credible and early eyewitnesses who said Jesus Himself claimed to be the great “I Am” or Yahweh God.
One famous historian, Dr. William Ramsay, conducted a thorough investigation of every name and location mentioned in the Gospel of Luke and in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. Ramsay was an atheist convinced that Christianity was just one more myth of the ancient world. He planned to catalog all of Luke’s errors in order to make the story of the virgin-born Messiah look as ridiculous as the myths of Zoroaster and Zeus.
To Ramsay’s dismay, however, Luke proved to be a top-notch historian. He triple-checked every name and place Luke mentions against every historical record he could find pertaining to the first century. In the end, Ramsay could not deny Luke’s incredible accuracy. Eventually, Ramsay surrendered his life to the Jesus he had set out to debunk.
As mentioned, the Gospels of the New Testament claim to be based on eyewitness testimony, and the authors express a concern for what really happened in the life of Jesus. Names and places are often mentioned that could only be known by people who were actually there when the events took place. These were people who knew Jesus personally. Most historians agree that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was the primary source for the nativity story found in Luke. The virgin conception was not only based in history, but also a necessary component of the gospel.
Writing at the beginning of the second century, the church father Ignatius wrote:
“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost.”[1]
The Bible teaches that ever since Adam’s sin, children inherit the sinful condition of their parents.[2] Had Jesus come into this world like you and me, with a mother and father, He could not have been the sinless Savior and spotless sacrifice for sins that we all need. This could only happen if Jesus entered this world through a supernatural conception.
The Myth of the “Jesus Myth”
There are many out there, like comedian Bill Maher, who have tried to say that the virgin birth is just part of the “Jesus myth.” He argues that the Christians plagiarized this idea of the virgin birth from pagan mythologies that had already been around for centuries. But on closer examination, this skeptical claim falls apart. Not only are the pagan stories not really virgin births because they involve a god sleeping with a goddess or woman, but they don’t make any attempt to be rooted in history, as the Gospels do.
In his mockumentary film Religulous, Maher tries to argue that long before the Jesus story, the Egyptians believed that their god Horus, the son of Osiris, was born of a virgin, walked on water, performed healing miracles, died by crucifixion, and was resurrected as savior after three days. Oh yeah, and the film claims this is all recorded in the Egyptian book of the dead written in 1280 BC. This is meant to catch viewers off guard. Wait a minute. The Jesus story sounds just like that!
No doubt, it sounds pretty compelling. The only problem? Almost none of this is based in actual history; this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. As Egyptian pastor Shaddy Soliman said, “If you made this kind of claim in Egypt, people would think you’re crazy.”[3]
The only thing truly accurate about the above description of Horus was that he was indeed supposed to be the son of the Egyptian god Osiris. But before considering the other claims, something needs to be clarified.
With nearly every one of the examples that skeptics like Maher cite, it is painfully obvious that they are mythological. They were not written as historical accounts. In fact, there is really no effort by the authors to root these polytheistic tales in a real historical context. By contrast, consider how Luke begins his Gospel:
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4, ESV)
Luke talks about his account being based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. He says he did his research, following “all things closely for some time past.” He set out “to write an orderly account” so that his reader would have “certainty” about the Jesus story. This is how you begin a work of history, not mythology. He doesn’t start with “Once upon a time,” but instead gives specific names and times when kings and emperors were reigning, so that there would be no question, this is a carefully researched historical account. As it turns out, the real myth is that there even was a “Jesus myth,” since the Jesus story is based on credible eyewitness accounts of history.
Is Jesus Based on Horus?
So what about Horus?
Was he too said to be born of a virgin?
According to author Rice Broocks, here’s what really happened in the Horus myth (brace yourself, it’s pretty gross):
“Osiris was killed and dismembered, and his body parts cast into a river. Isis retrieved his genitals and then inseminated herself in order to get pregnant and have the son, Horus.”[4]
Oookay then. To call that a virgin birth is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Well, what about Horus performing healing miracles? Nope, there’s no record of him ever healing anyone. What about Horus being crucified? Again, no, nothing like that is recorded other than his hands being spread apart at death. But no cross. No nails. In fact, crucifixion wasn’t even practiced by the Egyptians. So again, the claim doesn’t fit the facts of history. What about rising from the dead? As Broocks explains, in one account Horus is said to be resuscitated, but that is nothing like the Jewish understanding of resurrection where you are raised to new bodily life in glory.
I would encourage those who have been told that the Jesus story is just a copycat of other ancient religions to actually delve into the accounts themselves. Do the research to see if this claim stands up to historical analysis. Ask critical questions. Does the copycat claim make sense of the facts? Where do certain beliefs or ideas show up in historical records? Don’t just blindly accept the claims of those who are bent on making Christianity look foolish.
In most cases, my guess is that these skeptics don’t want the Jesus story to be true, because if Jesus really did die and rise again, then they are undoubtedly accountable to Him; He’s Lord. But if the Jesus story is just a reshuffled version of what was already out there, and it has no grounding in historical truth, they can shunt it aside as another fable and Jesus could be safely ignored along with Zeus and Thor. But what if this retelling is pure fiction?
In his book, Reinventing Jesus, J. Ed Komoszewski writes:
“Only after the rise of Christianity did mystery religions begin to look suspiciously like the Christian faith. Once Christianity became known, many of the mystery cults consciously adopted Christian ideas so that their deities would be perceived to be on par with Jesus. The shape of the mystery religions prior to the rise of Christianity is vague, ambiguous, and localized. Only by a huge stretch of the imagination, and by playing fast and loose with the historical data, can one see them as having genuine conceptual parallels to the Christian faith of the first century.”[5]
The simple fact is that the vast majority of historians today accept that the basic facts about Jesus’ life are rooted in history, not mythology. Not only that, but no historian or scholar ever tried to argue against the Jesus of history for the first 1,700 years following His life. While some disputed His resurrection appearances, nobody tried to argue that Jesus was not a figure of history or that His story was just cobbled together from ancient mythologies. Even today, no historian worth his or her salt will try to deny that Jesus ever existed.
It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that a handful of historians began to argue that since miracles cannot happen (a premise they assumed a priori based on naturalistic convictions), then the story of the miraculous Jesus cannot be real either.
Komoszewski writes:
“As far back as the 1840s, Bruno Bauer began to publish views that the story of Jesus was rooted in myth. Bauer’s greatest influence was on one of his students, Karl Marx, who promoted the view that Jesus never existed. This view eventually became part of communist dogma.”[6]
The Jewish Context of Christian Origins
A glaring problem with this “copycat theory” is that it ignores the Jewish theological and historical context into which Christianity was born. While many forget this, the first Christians were all Jewish. One thing is clear about the Jews of the first century: they utterly repudiated all forms of polytheistic and pagan worship. That being the case, the early Christians would abhor the idea of borrowing ideas about God or worship from the pagan myths of the Gentiles.
It’s clear from the New Testament that the early Christian leaders saw myths as a dangerous threat, not something from which to learn. The Apostle Paul warned his fellow Christians about those who “devote themselves to myths” (1 Timothy 1:4, NIV). He predicted that many, even in churches, “will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4, NIV). The Apostle Peter said, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16, ESV). The argument that Christians just adopted pagan mythical ideas makes no sense, given their leaders continual warnings to run away as far as they could from myths.
Again, Komoszewski writes:
“The first-century Jewish mindset loathed syncretism. Unlike the Gentiles of this era, Jews refused to blend their religion with other religions. Gentile religions were not exclusive; one could be a follower of several different gods at one time. But Judaism was strictly monotheistic, as was Christianity. As the gospel spread beyond the borders of Israel, the apostles not only found themselves introducing people to the strange idea of a man risen from the dead; they also came face-to-face with a polytheistic culture. But they made no accommodation on this front.”[7]
Is Christmas a Pagan Holiday?
I’ve come across numerous internet bloggers, YouTubers, and conversation partners who try to argue that Christianity so closely parallels the ancient mystery religions that Christians must have just copied them to sound legitimate. This erroneous idea is found on the lips of one of Dan Brown’s characters in The Da Vinci Code: “Nothing in Christianity is original.” The novel claims that everything from Jesus’ virgin birth to His birthday on December 25th to the idea of Him receiving “gold, frankincense, and myrrh” has its origin in pagan mythologies, like that of Mithras.
But this is so inaccurate, it’s almost laughable. None of Brown’s claims stand up to scrutiny. To be as charitable as possible, we’d have to say that he didn’t do his homework when writing the book. More likely, he knew that the sensational sells while the truth is often ignored. It’s simply not true that Mithras was born of a virgin – he was born of a rock![8] Let’s not pretend rocks can be called virgins now. In fact, what you don’t find in any of the mystery religions is anything remotely like the virgin conception in the New Testament – which was also prophesied 700 years in advance in Isaiah 7:14. You have gods like Zeus sleeping with human women and producing beings that are half-man and half-god. But obviously if a god had sex with a woman, then she’s not a virgin.
What about December 25th? It’s true that this was the date chosen by the Emperor Aurelius to dedicate his pagan temple to Sol Invictus, the god of the “Unconquerable Sun,” because it was close to the winter solstice. Since Mithraism was closely associated with the worship of Sol, there is a connection between Mithras and that particular date. But let me explain why that does not mean Christmas itself has pagan origins.
No one knows the actual date of Christ’s birth. The earliest known date for celebrating it was actually January 6th and many Eastern churches still celebrate Christmas on that day. But here’s the important point to be made: Thecelebration of Christmas preceded the choice of December 25th as the day on which to celebrate. So why do we celebrate it on December 25th? According to historians, we have Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, to thank for that. Prior to becoming a Christian, Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus. It seems that in AD 336, the year before Constantine died, he chose December 25th to now be a day for celebrating Christ, not Sol Invictus. In the decades that followed, many popes and emperors argued for appropriating the pagan holidays to demonstrate the redemptive power of Christ.
What about this idea in The Da Vinci Code that gold, frankincense, and myrrh were presented to Krishna at his birth long before the Jesus story? This one is just false. There’s nothing like this found in the story of Krishna’s birth,[9] and I would guess that Brown got this idea from Dorothy Murdock, who has no academic training. While she is a popular writer, many of her claims – such as this one—are roundly rejected by the scholarly community.
The most we could say is that certain cultural practices appear to have overlap between Christianity and ancient pagan religions, but that only makes sense when you consider that by the end of the first century, the vast majority of Christians were former pagans. Nevertheless, there’s good reason to conclude that Christian theology and the Jesus story were not influenced by Mithraism or other pagan mythologies. In the most profound sense, the Christian gospel is both original and unique. The so-called parallels are either gross exaggerations or complete fabrications. All claims to the contrary are evidence of shoddy scholarship and a hunger for the sensational.
Eddy and Boyd make the point well:
“While there are certainly parallel terms used in early Christianity and the mystery religions, there is little evidence for parallel concepts. For example, as we have noted, both Christianity and the mystery religions spoke of salvation—as do many religions throughout history. But what early Christians meant by this term had little in common with what devotees of mystery religions meant by it. To site just one difference, there was in the mystery religions nothing similar to Paul’s idea that disciples participate in the death and resurrection of their Savior and are adopted as God’s children by placing their trust in him.”[10]
So, yes, you’ll find similarities in the general, but you won’t find specific parallels. Christianity is utterly unique in the kind of story it tells. It’s a story of grace – of the one true God coming to the rescue of humanity by being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying as a substitute sin-bearer in the place of lost sinners, and rising again bodily. The testimony we find in the New Testament belongs to those who actually saw the risen Christ, felt His nail-pierced hands, and saw Him ascend into the clouds.[11] History records not only His first followers doggedly sticking with the same story from the beginning but also their willingness to die for what they witnessed firsthand. What about the pagan adherents of those other supposed “dying and rising god” myths out there? We don’t have any record of them claiming to see their god in the flesh or being willing to die for this claim. Only Christianity can say this. That’s the power and uniqueness of the Jesus story.
[1] Quoted in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980), 56.
[2] See my previous article “Does the Bible Teach Original Sin?”
[3] Quoted in Rice Broocks, Man, Myth, Messiah, 119.
[4] Rice Broocks, Man Myth Messiah, Kindle edition.
“You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.” (Luke 1:31, NIV)
In the ancient world, human life was viewed as very cheap. Someone’s value came from what they could offer to others. If you were useful or skilled, you had value in the eyes of others; if not, you were expendable. Babies were often viewed as disposable, and women and children were treated as property. Before Jesus came, human beings almost universally had only instrumental value in the eyes of others, not intrinsic value.
The birth of Jesus Christ changed all that. The Bible says of Jesus, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19, NIV). His primary purpose for coming was to accomplish our redemption from sin and make us new. Yet the Creator of the cosmos was not above entering this world through a virgin’s womb. Although He was supernaturally conceived, He otherwise entered this world like you did, growing inside His mother’s belly for most of a year. And like you, after coming down the birth canal, He was totally dependent on His mother’s nourishment and care.
Here lies the greatest enigma of all. The Supreme Creator who spoke everything into being was coddled and nursed by His teenage mother. No wonder the angels look on in stunned amazement at what God has done (1 Peter 1:12). The One through whom and for whom all things exist had made Himself small. Simply put, Jesus was a fetus.
The word fetus simply means an “unborn baby.” Although there’s nothing degrading about the term itself, it is often used as a way to dehumanize the unborn. Not long ago, my wife, Whitney, and I visited OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry). One of the most fascinating exhibits is called Prenatal Development. In a circular room, you find preserved unborn babies at every stage of development in utero.[1] What struck me was that from a very early stage, perhaps around nine weeks, the tiny baby revealed features that were so undeniably human. Already at that point, miniscule limbs have sprouted and little black eyes can be seen on the bean-shaped head. I came away from the exhibit agreeing with King David that we truly are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). How incredible to think that Jesus too passed through each one of those stages in Mary’s womb!
Luke records that when the pregnant Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was also pregnant, Elizabeth’s baby – later known as John the Baptist – leaped in his mother’s womb. And then Elizabeth tells Mary:
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:42-44, ESV)
Today, many in our nation are asking, “Why should we care about the unborn?” One abortion rights advocate even mockingly called the pro-life position a “love affair with the fetus.”[2] The unborn child has even been likened to a parasite or blob of tissue.[3] No doubt the dehumanization of these precious little image bearers of God has led to the slaughter of millions.
So, why should we care about the baby in the womb? Here is one very good reason: Because Jesus was once a baby in the womb. And even while unborn, He brought joy to another unborn baby! If experiencing joy in the presence of another doesn’t qualify for personhood, I don’t know what would!
It’s worth noting that the Greek word used for baby here –βρέφος(brephos) – is the same word Luke uses for babies outside the womb elsewhere, showing that God’s Word doesn’t distinguish between babies inside and babies outside the womb (see Luke 2:12, 16; 18:15). Either way, they’re all babies.
It is because Jesus came as a baby and welcomed and loved the little children He encountered that Christians have always made the care of children a priority. In ancient Rome, where babies were often aborted or abandoned, the early Christians were known for saving thousands of babies. They brought them into their homes, adopted them as their own, and taught them the Christian faith.
When the disciples tried to hold the children back as little nuisances, Jesus famously said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them” (Matthew 19:14a, NIV). Those words inspired Christians throughout history to be the first to start orphanages, foundling homes, and eventually start Sunday Schools for children to learn about Jesus at an early age.[4]
Christians today are known for being at the forefront of the pro-life movement and starting the 3,000 to 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers across the United States. These clinics are known for offering free services and demonstrating compassion to thousands of young pregnant women in difficult situations and empowering them to make wise and informed decisions.
Many today view the pro-life movement as an obstacle to the women’s rights movement. However, those who hold this notion ignore the fact that the same Jesus movement that brought about the pro-life position also paved the way for equal treatment of women.
In ancient times, nearly every culture viewed women as having a lower status than men. Aristotle even argued that a woman ranked somewhere between a free man and a slave. Considering that a slave held no more value than cattle in ancient times, you get a glimpse of how poorly women were treated. As you review the accounts from ancient India, China, Rome, and Greece, the widespread consensus was that wives were the property of their husbands. Modern westerners can hardly fathom such a low view of women. So what changed all that? What inspired the now widespread perspective that women and men have equal value, rights, and dignity?
In the words of historian Rodney Stark, the elevation of women has its roots in the “triumph of Christianity.”[5] That is, Jesus Himself elevated women to a level of dignity and respect. He honored the women who followed Him, engaged them in conversation, and was eager to teach them alongside the men, all social taboos at the time. Jesus treated women as equals to their male counterparts. It is the early Christians who taught the then-pagan world that husbands are to love and be faithful to their wives, widows should be cared for, and polygamy was forbidden by God. Stark writes, “In response to the special appeal that the faith had for women, the early church drew substantially more female than male converts, and this in a world where women were in short supply.”[6]
What does all this have to do with Christmas?
By daring to become a human Himself, Jesus imbued all human life with greater dignity than it ever had before His birth. In the Christian worldview, unborn children, women, and men all have equal value as image bearers of God, and consistent followers of Jesus have always stood for the rights of each.
All this because of Christmas. When you trace the roots of all these changes back far enough, you will find that they all began in a little manger in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago.
[1] According to the display, all of the unborn children died as a result of “natural causes or accidents,” not abortion.
Lamp and Light 