The New Testament contains the markings of being authentic because it includes numerous details that reflect poorly on those who wrote it and on Jesus. Moreover, the writers were willing to die for their claims, and they were in a position to know if they were true or not.Audio

Video

Don't use iTunes? Subscribe here.TranscriptHello, and welcome to Unapologetic, a podcast about defending, not apologizing for, our Christian convictions. (0:12) Last week, we talked about the Bible and some reasons we should trust it. One of those reasons and types of testimony was early testimony. What is written in the New Testament was written very close to the events that it describes in terms of time. However, we also talked about eye-witness testimony, that what was written was either written by eye-witnesses or people who talked with eye-witnesses. Well, today we're going to continue on with those previous two E's and talk about three more E's: embarrassing testimony, excruciating testimony, and extra-biblical testimony. (0:47) So, embarrassing testimony. One thing we talked about when we talked about the Resurrection was the principle of embarrassment, and it simply says that any details embarrassing to the author are probably true. You're not going to make up things that make yourself look bad. And yet, the New Testament writers include numerous details that do not portray themselves in a positive light. For instance, the Gospel writers are dim-witted. Numerous times, they failed to understand what Jesus is saying to them. They're even uncaring and they write this down for us to see. They fall asleep on Jesus twice when He asked them to pray. Let's re-sensitize ourself to maybe what's actually going on here. They believe that God incarnate is standing in front of them and tells them to pray. And they fall asleep. That's embarrassing enough. But they write it down and it's preserved well enough for us to read 2,000 years later. You're not going to write down that you fell asleep when God told you pray unless it happened. But it gets worse! Peter's actually called Satan by Jesus. How would that actually have gone if they're making this up? Let's say they're sitting around the campfire, and Mark is saying, "Hey Peter, there's a great plot twist here. I'm going to have Jesus call you Satan." What worse name could there be for God to call you than Satan? Frank Turek has pointed this out in the past and I find it extremely persuasive and powerful. You're not going to have God calling you Satan unless it actually happened. And even then you might not write it down. They're also called cowards and they're doubters, and they write this down for us to see. (2:23) But there are also embarrassing things in the New Testament about Jesus. For starters, He's considered out of His mind by His mother and His brothers. Now, why would you include that in the document intended to get people to believe in this guy named Jesus unless it were true? And even if it were true, why would you include that His family basically wanted to Baker Act Him? They didn't think He was God, they thought He was crazy! But they include that for us. And that's extremely helpful because, when we come to see that after Jesus' Resurrection and ascension, James is part of the New Testament church and ultimately becomes one of the leaders of it. Well, this guy went from, "my brother's crazy", to "my brother's God." What could convince him of that? Well, the Resurrection. (3:09) But there are other embarrassing things about Jesus too. He's called a drunkard. That's not a good title if you're claiming to be God. He has His feet wiped with…