The Accuracy of the New Testament

Hello, everyone. It's good to see you all again this week.

I want to welcome you back to part two of our three-part series on the reliability of the New Testament.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Tom Schmidt. I'm a Ph.D. student at Yale University.

I focus on the history of Christianity and also the history of the New Testament.

Last week when I was with you all, I talked about the preservation of the New Testament.

That was part one, and we saw how carefully and reliably the text of the New Testament has been preserved over the centuries.

And today in part two, I'm going to talk about the accuracy of the New Testament.

And we'll cover how the content of the New Testament is accurate, how it's true, and how it's trustworthy.

And then next week, we'll talk about the canonicity of the New Testament,

and I'll speak about how the New Testament was assembled and put together.

And we're going in this order because these topics lead into one another fairly naturally.

So last week, we saw how the New Testament has been well-preserved,

but we all know that it's possible for someone to write a document

that's full of exaggerations and misstatements and even lies,

and then have that document preserved over the centuries.

So if the New Testament is truly reliable,

then it needs to be more than just carefully preserved.

It also needs to be accurate and true, and that's what we'll cover today.

We'll investigate why we can trust that the New Testament is trustworthy,

why we can trust that what it says about Jesus is true,

why its claims are factual,

and this pertains especially to the New Testament's central claim

that Jesus was crucified and buried and then resurrected three days later.

Why don't we open with prayer, though, before we begin.

Father in Heaven, I want to thank You for this opportunity to gather together here safely together

and to learn about Your Word.

And we ask, in the name of Jesus, that You would send Your Holy Spirit into our hearts this morning,

and that You would help us to grow in trust in Your Word,

and above all, trust in You,

that we would depend on You.

Lord, I pray if there's any of us here who are searching for You,

that You would be revealed in this time.

I pray, Lord, that You would calm any troubled hearts,

and that You would forgive any unforgiven sins.

Lord, I pray You'd open our hearts to hear what You have to say today.

And we pray all of this in the mighty name of Jesus.

Amen.

All right, so let's get started.

Why can we trust that the New Testament is accurate and true?

You know, sometimes we hear accusations

that the New Testament is based on myths or folk tales,

that it's inaccurate or deceptive.

I've heard these claims many times,

both in popular culture and in the classroom.

I'm sure some of you may have heard these things as well.

But I'm here to tell you today that all this is wrong.

The New Testament is not based on rumors or lies or myths,

and indeed there are several reasons

why we can trust its factual claims.

Now, these reasons build on one another,

so we're going to begin with the most fundamental reason.

We can trust that the New Testament

is not made up of myths or rumors.

We can trust that it's true and accurate,

first and foremost,

because it is based on eyewitness testimony.

It's not based off of rumor or hearsay.

And these eyewitnesses who are behind the documents of the New Testament

were in a position to know what Jesus said

and to report it accurately.

Let me give you some examples of this.

John, the disciple of Jesus,

he writes in the New Testament in his first letter.

He talks about Jesus,

and he calls him the word of life.

And he says this,

He says,

He says,

That which was from the beginning,

which we have heard,

which we have seen with our eyes,

which we have looked at,

and our hands have touched,

this we proclaim concerning the word of life,

the life appeared.

We have seen it and testified to it,

and we proclaim to you the eternal life

which was with the Father

and has appeared to us.

We proclaim to you

what we have seen and heard.

John tells us here

that he's preaching

not something that he just heard about distantly,

a rumor or anything like that,

but something that he witnessed.

He saw Jesus with his eyes.

He touched him with his hands.

He directly heard him with his ears.

And Peter, another disciple of Jesus,

he says the same thing in the New Testament

in his second letter.

He says,

We did not follow cleverly devised tales

when we made known to you

the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,

but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Other New Testament authors make similar claims.

Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke,

he says in the beginning

that he interviewed eyewitnesses about Jesus.

He says,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken

to compile an account

of the things accomplished among us,

just as they were handed down to us

by those who from the beginning

were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,

it seemed fitting for me as well.

Having investigated everything carefully

from the beginning

to write it out for you

in consecutive order,

most excellent Theophilus,

so that you may know the exact truth

about the things that you have been taught.

Theophilus, whom Luke mentions,

he was the person to whom Luke wrote.

And Luke tells him,

I went to the eyewitnesses.

I investigated everything carefully

so that I could tell the exact truth to you.

So we've heard from the Apostle John,

the Apostle Peter,

Luke the evangelist,

but we've got more witnesses.

We have the Apostle Paul.

He also testifies as an eyewitness,

and he gives what is perhaps

the earliest account

of the resurrection of Jesus.

In his own words to the Corinthians,

he says,

I delivered to you as of first importance

what I also received,

that Christ died for our sins

in accordance to the Scriptures,

that he was buried,

that he was raised on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Cephas,

that's Peter,

and then to the twelve,

the twelve apostles.

Then he appeared to more than

five hundred brothers at one time,

most of whom are still alive,

though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James,

and to all the apostles,

last of all,

as to one untimely born,

he appeared also to me.

The resurrection of Jesus

is the essence of our faith,

and Paul gives his own eyewitness

testimony of it here.

And indeed,

the twelve apostles agree.

They say in the book of Acts,

this Jesus God raised up,

and of that we all are witnesses.

The fact that the New Testament

is based on eyewitness testimony

is so well established

that even anti-Christian sources agree.

Now what do I mean by these

anti-Christian sources?

These sources were ancient writers

who attacked Christianity

in the second through fourth centuries.

They were people like Celsus and Porphyry,

Heracles and Julian the Apostate,

they were highly educated,

powerful,

and extremely hostile to Christianity,

but even when they were attacking

the New Testament,

they still attributed its writings

to Jesus' disciples.

These ancient skeptics

did not believe

that the New Testament documents

were written under false names

far after the time of Jesus,

and hence were based on rumors

or hearsay,

like some scholars

try to maintain today.

They acknowledged

that the disciples

wrote these documents.

So if such hostile sources agree

that the disciples

were ultimately behind

the New Testament,

then we also can be sure

that the New Testament

is indeed based on eyewitness testimony,

and that its account

of the life of Jesus

and his resurrection

is not based off of

mere rumor or hearsay.

But I want to ask you something.

Even if we can be sure

that the New Testament

is based on eyewitness testimony,

how can we be sure

that the eyewitnesses

were telling the truth?

We all know that eyewitnesses

can lie,

so do we have good reason

to think that these eyewitnesses

are being truthful

and that they're not

fabricating their claims?

Well, we have several reasons

to trust the claims

of these eyewitnesses.

I'll start with the first one.

Firstly, they did not have

a motive to lie

about the resurrection of Jesus.

They did not gain materially

from their claims.

They did not gain money.

They did not gain fame.

They did not gain power

or earthly benefit

by preaching that Jesus

was the Son of God

and that he was resurrected.

Not only does the New Testament

testify to this,

but even those ancient critics

of Christianity

that I mentioned earlier,

like Celsus and Julian,

even they agree with this.

In fact,

when you read their writings,

they mocked the apostles

for being poor,

for being members

of the underclass,

for being uneducated,

for being friends

with slaves

and the lower classes

and minority groups.

They knew that the apostles

did not gain riches

or political power

for following Jesus.

They knew that they were impoverished

and they mocked them for it.

In fact,

far from seeking material gain

for their beliefs,

the apostles and authors

of the New Testament,

they knowingly risked

persecution,

humiliation,

scorn,

shame,

and even death.

And indeed,

many of them

were executed

for their faith in Jesus.

And all of them

were persecuted

and even tortured.

But when the authorities

warned them

to stop preaching

in the name of Jesus

and threaten them

with punishment,

the book of Acts says

that they replied,

we cannot but speak

of what we have seen

and heard.

Despite all these threats,

they still continued

to proclaim

that Jesus was resurrected.

And just look at

the outcome of their lives.

Peter was executed.

Paul was executed.

John was exiled

as a prisoner

to the island of Patmos.

James,

the brother of John,

was beheaded.

Matthew was executed.

Thaddeus was executed.

Nathanael was executed.

James,

the brother of Jesus,

was executed.

We all have good historical data

that points to these facts.

And more than this,

we have evidence

that many other early Christians

suffered the same fate.

And the fact

that the apostles

were terribly persecuted

for their belief

in the resurrection of Jesus

is so indisputable

it's so beyond question

that again,

even those anti-Christian sources

agree with this.

They tell us this.

They tell us

that the apostles

were persecuted

and that they were executed.

We see this,

for example,

in the Jewish Talmud

and the Jewish historian Josephus

which claimed that

Matthew and Thaddeus

and Nathanael

and James were executed.

The Roman historian Tacitus

tells us

of a persecution

of Christians in Rome

under Emperor Nero

that sounds exactly like

the circumstances

under which Peter

and perhaps also Paul

were executed.

But despite such great persecution,

the apostles and eyewitnesses

continued to maintain

that Jesus

really was resurrected.

These sufferings

are not something

that people

would endure

for a claim

that they knew

was a lie.

Instead,

it seems far more likely

that the apostles

were simply

telling the truth.

So for the first,

the first reason

that we can trust

the eyewitnesses

is because they

didn't have worldly motives

to lie.

They had nothing

to gain from it.

And the second reason

is because they had

everything to lose.

And indeed,

they were persecuted

for what they believed.

But they continued

to preach.

And this trustworthy

character of the apostles

was so steadfast

that they passed it down

to their own disciples.

Just like Jesus,

the apostles

went on to have

disciples of their own.

And when we examine

the character of these men,

these followers

of the apostles,

we see that they also

conducted themselves

in the same way

as Jesus

and the apostles did.

They also suffered

and were martyred

for their faith in Jesus.

So let me give you

some examples here.

We have Ignatius of Antioch,

Polycarp of Smyrna.

These both were

disciples of the apostles.

We both have their writings

that remain for us to read

and both of them

were executed

for their faith in Jesus.

If we look at Ignatius

specifically,

we see that he was

a disciple of Peter

and in the year 107 AD,

he was awaiting

his execution

for being a Christian

and during this time

he wrote a letter.

And in this letter,

he talks about Peter

witnessing the resurrection

of Jesus

and what he says

sums up exactly

what I've been saying.

This is what he writes.

He says,

For Jesus suffered

all these things

for our sakes

in order that we might be saved.

And he truly suffered

just as he truly raised himself,

not as unbelievers say.

For I know and believe

that he was in the flesh

even after the resurrection.

And when he came to Peter

and those with him,

he said to him,

Take hold of me

and handle me

and see that I am not

a disembodied spirit.

And immediately,

they touched him

and believed,

being closely united

with his flesh and blood.

And for this reason,

they too despised death.

Indeed, they proved

to be greater than death.

And after his resurrection,

he ate and drank with them

like one who is composed of flesh,

although spiritually

he was united with the Father.

Here, Ignatius proclaims

the resurrection of Jesus.

He says that he knows

Jesus appeared to Peter

and for this reason,

Peter and the apostles

despised death.

Why did they do this?

Because they had seen

the one who had conquered death

and they knew death

had power over them no longer.

And Ignatius joyfully

testifies to this

while he is condemned

to die the same fate.

What a powerful testimony.

Consider this.

The New Testament

was not written

by a bunch of rich,

powerful,

highly educated people

who gained wealth

and influence

and fame and power

from their preaching.

Instead,

the New Testament

was written by a group

of carpenters,

of fishermen,

of tent makers

and prisoners.

And they were persecuted

and tortured

and unjustly accused.

These eyewitnesses of Jesus

did not seek money

or power

like we would expect

someone who is making

something up.

Instead,

they gained suffering.

But so devoted

and committed

were they to Jesus' resurrection

that they preached it

despite the risk

and even their own disciples

did the same.

They knew that Jesus

had defeated death

and they were unafraid

of it.

And these apostles

were the one

who brought

our New Testament

and its message

of love and salvation

into our dark world.

And they did it

at great cost.

So let me summarize.

Can we trust

that the New Testament

is accurate?

Yes, we can.

It is based

on eyewitness testimony

of the apostles,

not on rumor

or report.

And these eyewitnesses

are trustworthy

because they did not

gain anything materially

from their claims.

They had no motive

to lie about the resurrection.

Rather, they risked

persecution and death.

And in fact,

their own disciples

went on to do

the very same thing as well.

And these points

are so beyond question

that even ancient

non-Christian sources

admit to many

of these things.

But you know,

so far I've been talking

about how the New Testament

writers were in a position

to know the facts

about Jesus

because they wrote

with the backing

of eyewitness testimony.

I've shown

why I think

we can trust them,

why their character

was trustworthy,

why what they were saying

is true.

But let's not stop here.

Let's see if we can test

the reliability

of the eyewitnesses

in other ways.

Let's not just trust

the character and motives

of the eyewitnesses.

Let's see if we can

test their truthfulness

and their accuracy

a little more scientifically.

As you all know,

eyewitnesses might still

have accidentally

put in false information.

They might have gotten

carried away

in their great passion

and then exaggerated things.

They might have even

convinced themselves

that something was true

when it actually wasn't.

Even if they were sincere,

they may still have been

inaccurate.

We all know honest people

who make wrong statements.

So let's do a more

thorough investigation here.

Let's see

if the New Testament

holds up to

good old-fashioned

brass tacks,

nuts and bolts,

historical scrutiny.

Let's forget about

character and motives.

And this is how

we're going to do this.

Throughout the New Testament,

the authors make

numerous historical claims.

And we can check

these claims

against the historical record

to see

if what they say

is true.

We can double-check

and cross-check

the claims of the New Testament

with what we know

from history

and see how they line up.

So when the New Testament

mentions a person

or a place

or an event,

we can check that claim

against the historical record

and see if the New Testament

is accurate.

And when we do this,

we find that the New Testament

authors were indeed accurate

and that they were not

in the habit

of making up information.

Let me show you

what I mean.

The New Testament authors

report the existence

of several Roman emperors,

for example.

And we know

from various

historical sources

that they correctly

identify them

in their proper

historical context.

And this comes

from various lines

of evidence

that we have

like historical reports,

the archaeological record,

and from coins.

You can see an example

on the screen.

So I just want to walk you

through this

a little bit.

So here we've got

Emperor Augustus.

Luke talks about him.

We know from history

Luke totally identifies him properly.

Same thing with

Emperor Tiberius.

Luke mentions him.

Boom.

He gets him right.

Same thing with

Emperor Claudius.

In Acts 18,

Luke gets him right.

Now I'm giving some coins

as examples of these folks.

We have lots of other evidence,

of course,

about these guys.

But we can keep on going here.

Herod the Great.

Matthew talks about him

in Chapter 2.

He gets it right.

Herod Archelaus.

Matthew talks about him as well.

Also gets him right.

And we can just keep going.

King Herod had lots of sons.

He called them all Herod.

Herod Philip,

we know him.

Herod Antipas,

we know him.

Herod Agrippa I,

Acts gets him right.

Herod Agrippa II,

Acts gets him right.

Here's another king,

Arathos IV.

He's mentioned in the book of Acts.

He's mentioned in 2 Corinthians.

New Testament gets him right.

Here we've got Sergius Paulus.

This is the guy who converted

under the Apostle Paul's preaching.

This is the reason why Paul is called Paul.

Because of this guy.

He changed his name because of this guy.

And we have an inscription

that talks about him.

He's relatively unknown,

less unknown than the other guys

I've mentioned.

The New Testament gets him right

in his proper historical context.

Pontius Pilate,

you know he's mentioned many times

in the New Testament.

He's the one who supervised

the trial of Jesus

and his execution.

And we know him

from many historical references.

We also know him

from this very famous inscription

that mentions his name.

But let's do

some more challenging analysis.

It's good that the New Testament

get these folks right.

But let's see

what the New Testament authors do

with other lesser known figures

whom someone would likely

only know about

if they were very well informed.

The New Testament speaks

about lots and lots of people.

I've got about 17 names on here.

Some of these

you probably recognize.

Maybe some of them you don't.

They're very obscure.

People like Bernice,

Drusilla in the Book of Acts,

Judas the Galilean,

Festus, Felix, Salome,

Annas, Ananias.

We can just keep going down this list.

Gamaliel, Herodias,

John the Baptist,

even some of the apostles.

James, the brother of Jesus,

Matthew, Nicodemus,

Nathaniel, Thaddeus.

These are relatively minor figures.

And when we check

the historical record,

we see that every single one

of these folks

is mentioned

outside the Bible

by non-Christian sources.

And the New Testament

correctly places them

in their proper

historical context.

The New Testament

is even correct

about a very minor person

named Erastus

whom I've got

mentioned below.

He lived in Corinth.

And if you go to Corinth today,

you can still see

the Erastus inscription

in the pavement right there.

He was a minister

of public works there.

And you can see

some of the bricks

that he laid

right in the first century

when Paul was in Corinth.

A person in the ancient world

wouldn't know

about many of these figures

unless they were eyewitnesses

or had access

to reliable testimony.

But we can test

the accuracy

of the New Testament authors

in other ways as well.

We've been looking

at their references

to people.

We can look at

their geographic references.

So for example,

this map shows

dozens of locations

mentioned in the New Testament.

And the New Testament

correctly places

every single one of these.

It's even correct

about little tiny villages

around Jerusalem.

I know the font here

is really small,

but villages like

Emmaus, Arimathea,

Bethphaga, Bethany, Bethlehem.

The New Testament

is right about that.

The New Testament

is even right

about tiny fishing villages

around the Sea of Galilee.

You'll recognize

some of these names.

Capernaum,

Chorazin, Bethsaida.

These places

are extremely obscure.

Remember back then,

folks didn't have maps

or atlases

to document places like this.

The only way to know

about an insignificant

little fishing village

in the backwaters

of Galilee

was if you were there

or you knew someone

who was.

And the New Testament

gets them right.

But you know,

but we can go even smaller.

The Gospel of John

talks about Jacob's well

in John chapter 4.

John 4 · chapter mention

It's still there today.

The Gospel of John

talks about the pool of Siloam.

It's still there today

in Jerusalem.

You can go and see it.

The Gospel of John

mentions stone water jars.

Now, this is kind of strange.

Water jars usually

are made of clay, right?

It's a little weird

that he would mention

strange stone water jars,

but apparently

this wasn't out of the ordinary

in first century Judea

because here you go.

They still have them around.

These stone water jars

that are very large,

just like John says,

hold many gallons.

Now, we could continue

doing this for hours

about New Testament events

and customs,

contemporary beliefs,

various historical phenomenon,

but you guys get the point.

When the New Testament

makes historical claims,

we're able to verify

them successfully.

And this means

that the authors

were not in the habit

of making up information.

It also implies

that the original

New Testament documents

must have been

well preserved

because if later scribes

were in the habit

of messing about

with the manuscripts,

then these historical claims

would have tended

to have been altered

and therefore

would have tended

to not be so precise.

But they are.

Now, it must be said

that there are

a handful of instances

where the historical claims

in the New Testament

seem to be contradicted

by what we know

from other sources.

I would say

that the most serious

example of this

is with Theodos,

the Galilean,

whom Luke mentions

in Acts chapter 5.

Acts 5 · chapter mention

He dates Theodos

to before 39 AD.

The problem with this

is that the ancient

Jewish historian Josephus

talks about this guy

and he dates him

several decades later.

Straight up contradiction,

at least apparently.

But rather, I think,

than concluding

that Luke

and the New Testament

are wrong,

I would caution us

to withhold judgment,

given how accurate

the New Testament

is elsewhere.

Perhaps there was

a second Theodos.

Perhaps Josephus

was the one

who was wrong

and Luke

was the one

who was right.

In fact,

since the advent

of modern scholarship,

there have always been

historical claims

in the New Testament

that skeptical scholars

dismissed as wrong

or made up

or otherwise fictitious.

They would seize

on these things

and argue

that the New Testament

authors were

historically incorrect,

that they were

fabricating information

and that they were

untrustworthy.

But time and again,

later discoveries

have proved

the New Testament

right

and these skeptical

scholars wrong.

Let me give you

some examples.

Back in the day,

certain scholars

believed that Nicodemus,

who came to Jesus

at night in the Gospel

of John

and helped bury him,

skeptical scholars

believed that he was

quote,

fabricated by John

and made up

to serve some purpose.

Now, John gives

four data points

about Nicodemus.

He tells us he was

a member of the ruling class.

He was a Pharisee.

He was a teacher

of the law

and he was very wealthy.

And certain scholars

heard these skeptical

claims and they started

doing some investigation

and they started realizing

that according to

ancient Jewish literature,

there was in fact

a rich ruling family

in Jerusalem

that did have Pharisees

and teachers of the law

in it.

And do you know

what name was popular

for men in that family?

Nicodemus.

It also appears

that the Jewish

Babylonian Talmud

mentions Nicodemus'

execution as a disciple

of Jesus.

It seems like it uses

one of his nicknames

that we know about

from these ancient

Jewish sources.

Now, no scholar

can truthfully claim

that Nicodemus

never existed.

And it seems that

John was right after all.

But let me give you

more examples.

There's a pool of Bethesda

that's mentioned

in John chapter 5.

John 5 · chapter mention

John says it had

five porticos

or overhanging porches,

which is weird.

Pools usually have

four sides, you know,

five-sided pool.

Kind of strange.

For a long while,

scholars accused John

of making this up.

We had no record

of the pool of Bethesda.

They said the five porches

were fictitiously crafted

by John

to represent

the five stratas

of Jewish society

or the five books of Moses

or some nonsense like that.

But then in 1948,

we found this.

And now every scholar admits

that the pool of Bethesda

really does exist

and it had five sides

with five porches.

John was right.

And we can keep going.

Scholars claim

that Luke's chronology

in the book of Acts

was, quote,

hopeless,

that he made it up,

especially regarding

Paul's trial

before a guy named Galio

in the book of Acts,

Acts 18 · chapter mention

chapter 18.

Other, more faithful scholars

said, no, no, no.

We think Luke's right.

We think Luke probably

based this between

51 and 54 AD.

But they were dismissed.

And then in 1913,

we found this,

which mentions Galio

and precisely dates him

to 51 or 52 AD,

exactly as Luke claimed.

I can keep going.

Skeptical scholars

also accused Luke

of making up the census

in Luke chapter 2.

Luke 2 · chapter mention

This is when Mary

and Joseph

went to Bethlehem

to be registered

for Jesus' birth.

We hear about this

every Christmas.

Our historical sources

tell us

that this census

actually happened

years later.

Skeptical scholars

said Luke was wrong.

But then we found

this inscription,

which was shown

to speak about

not one census,

but several censuses.

And Luke

was vindicated.

Skeptical scholars

also questioned Luke

about the governor

Quirinius,

who oversaw the census.

The ancient historian,

Josephus,

placed his governorship

years later than Luke.

Some scholars

tried to solve this

by hypothesizing

maybe Quirinius

was governor

more than once.

But this seemed

like special pleading

to everyone.

But then we found

this inscription,

and then this one,

and then this one.

And they clearly say

that Quirinius

was governor

more than once.

And Luke

was right.

We can say

the same thing

about Luke's

reference

to Lysanius

in Luke chapter 3.

Luke 3 · chapter mention

This is Lysanius

the Tetrarch.

Scholars said

that for many years

Luke contradicted

the historical record.

Lysanius the Tetrarch.

It's an unusual name.

And there was only

one of them.

And he lived

50 or 60 years

after Luke

says he did.

Some faithful scholars

suggested

that maybe

there was more

than one Lysanius

the Tetrarch.

But they were dismissed.

And then we found this

in 1912.

And it clearly says,

I've got it highlighted

in red,

Lysanius the Tetrarch.

And now we know

there was more

than one Lysanius

the Tetrarch.

Luke was right

again.

So,

what a lucky guy.

It keeps coming up true.

It keeps coming up Luke

every time.

These instances

teach us

that it's never

wise to bet

against the historical

reliability

of the authors

of the New Testament.

We may find

evidence yet

that Luke was right

about that pesky

Theutis and Josephus

was wrong.

Or that both

of them were right

and there were

two different figures

of the same name.

After all,

it's happened before,

hasn't it?

But if not,

would this one

minor error

in chronology

really undermine

the overall

credibility

of the New Testament

given how

historically reliable

it is

with its other claims?

Especially

the important ones.

Indeed,

the historical

reliability

of the New Testament

is so strong

that it gets better

every year.

Just last year,

we found a ring

inscribed with the name

Pontius Pilate

and dating

to first century

Jerusalem.

And once again,

this supports

the New Testament

narrative

by bolstering

its reliability.

And so,

with the passing years,

we keep finding stuff

and it keeps coming up

New Testament

every time.

So let me summarize.

We can be sure

that the New Testament

is accurate and true

because it is based

off of eyewitness testimony.

And those eyewitnesses

were reliable

because they did not

gain anything

from their claims.

Therefore,

they didn't have

a motive to lie.

In fact,

they gained suffering

and persecution

because of the claim

of the resurrection

of Jesus.

And yet,

they persisted

in maintaining

that Jesus actually

was resurrected.

And furthermore,

their disciples

suffered the same fate

as them

and even non-Christians

admit to much of this.

And lastly,

as we've just seen,

we can historically

verify dozens,

if not hundreds,

of their claims

showing that the authors

of the New Testament

were not in the habit

of making up information

but were quite accurate

in their reports.

But let's do better

than this.

All I've been doing

so far is showing

that the New Testament

authors made accurate claims

about mundane,

normal,

everyday events

and activities.

But mundane evidence

gives only so much reason

for believing

super mundane things.

The New Testament

is right regarding

normal, natural,

everyday claims.

But what about

supernatural claims?

We want extraordinary

evidence for

extraordinary claims.

Can we, I wonder,

can we corroborate

the miracles

attributed to Jesus

in the New Testament?

Yes, we can.

This is because

the miracles of Jesus

were so indisputable.

They were so beyond doubt

that non-Christians

and even anti-Christians

admitted

that Jesus

and his disciples

worked miracles.

Let me show you

what I mean

and we're just going

to go down

through the centuries.

We're going to start

around 200 or 400 A.D.

with the Jewish Talmud.

This is a collection

of Jewish traditions

and when you go

through the pages

and find a reference

to Jesus,

there's a story

where they admit

that a guy named James,

a disciple of Jesus,

could perform

miraculous healing

in Jesus' name.

And then we go to

a little earlier,

Porphyry,

anti-Christian writer

around the year 300.

I've mentioned him

to you before.

He called for Christians

to be persecuted.

He wrote an entire book

against them.

But in his writings,

he also admitted

that Jesus worked wonders,

just like the Bible says.

Same thing with Heracles.

He was a powerful man

in the Roman Empire.

He was a governor.

He called for Christians

to be persecuted.

As a governor,

he actually persecuted Christians

and had them put to death.

He, like Porphyry,

also wrote a book

against the Christians.

And in this,

just like Porphyry,

he too admitted

that Jesus worked miracles.

Let's keep going.

The Tosefza,

an earlier manual

of Jewish tradition,

and it says a very similar thing

as the Jewish Talmud.

It admits that Jesus' disciples

could heal in his name,

but it cautions Jews

not to be persuaded by them.

The Oracle of Hecate,

a pagan oracle

in the 200s,

says that Jesus was immortal

around the year 175.

Celsus,

an anti-Christian writer,

he called for Christians

to be persecuted,

and he still acknowledged

that Jesus worked wonders

and that early Christians

had authority over demons.

Phlegon,

around the year 125,

he reports

an unexpected darkness

around the time

of Jesus' death,

as well as an earthquake,

just like the Gospels say.

Phlegon also adds

that Jesus could correctly

predict the future.

And Josephus,

we've seen him

earlier in this talk,

around the year 90 or 95,

he's a Jewish historian

writing in the first century,

and he says that

Jesus worked miracles.

Paradoxa, he calls them.

A first century Jewish historian

admits this.

Thalas,

sometimes between 50 and 100,

we don't really know his dates,

the Greek writer Thalas

reports that the sun grew dark,

and he seemed to have

placed this event

at the time of Jesus' crucifixion,

just like the Gospels claim.

But we're not done yet.

We have to talk about

one of the greatest critics

of Christianity

and one of the earliest.

In 35 AD,

a persecutor of Christians

named Saul of Tarsus

was trying to destroy

the Christian faith,

and he tells us

in his own words

that the risen Jesus

appeared to him

and demonstrated

his miraculous powers.

And as you know,

after this,

Saul of Tarsus

changed his name

to Paul.

And he went on

to write many of the letters

of the New Testament

where he speaks

of how he was

a persecutor of Christians,

how he didn't believe,

and then he witnessed

the resurrected Jesus.

And after many years

of ministry,

he was executed

for his faith,

and we could say

similar things

about other ancient skeptics

like James and Jude,

none of whom

believed in Jesus,

but were convinced

when he appeared to them.

And they also went on

to write letters

of the New Testament.

This is extraordinary.

Remember that ancient authors

were more than capable

of denying miracles.

We see this,

for instance,

with Cicero,

we see this with the Epicureans,

but Jesus' miracles

were so indisputable

and beyond question

that non-Christian sources

and even anti-Christian sources

admitted that they occurred.

And some of these folks

became Christians themselves.

So can we trust

that the New Testament

is accurate and true?

Yes, we can.

It's based off

of eyewitness testimony.

The eyewitnesses

did not gain anything.

In fact,

they risked persecution.

Their disciples

suffered the same.

And their historical claims

can be verified.

And we can even verify

their miraculous claims.

And on top of this,

non-Christians admit

to most of these facts,

these ancient non-Christians.

But if all this

isn't enough for you,

then you can test

the authenticity

of Jesus' miraculous powers

right now.

All you have to do

is look around the world

and see what's going on.

This is because

the prophecies of Jesus

contained in the New Testament

are being remarkably

and miraculously

fulfilled among us.

If we go to Matthew 24,

Jesus says that

his gospel

will be preached

to the whole world

as a testimony

to all nations.

And if we look

at our world today,

we see that there is

no other message on earth

that has reached

so many people,

so many nations,

so many countries.

There's no message

except that message

of Jesus

that has been translated

into so many languages,

been adopted

by so many cultures,

and changed

so many lives.

Jesus' prophecy

is being fulfilled.

And all of you

are testimonies

to this.

And we all come

from all over the world.

Keep in mind

that Jesus

was not famous.

He was not powerful

or popular

or influential

when he predicted

these things.

He was a member

of the underclass.

He was a carpenter

from a backwater

of Galilee.

And he predicted

that his message

would go to the nations,

would go out to the world,

and he was right.

It spread farther

than any other

against all odds.

It's doing it right now.

And Jesus predicted

many other things correctly.

He said that many

false prophets

would come in his name.

Many false Christs

would come in his name.

He said that his followers

would be brought before

kings and rulers

and all these things

have happened

so many times

it's beyond counting.

And Jesus predicted

all of this

when he was still

an obscure carpenter

from Galilee.

And he was right

every time.

My friends,

I've been giving you

reasons why we can trust

that the New Testament

is true.

Why it's trustworthy.

Why we can believe it.

And if you're interested,

I'd be very glad

to talk with you

about these matters

and share my sources

of information with you.

But if you're here today

and you're still wondering

about this person of Jesus,

I want to give you

just one final simple test

to conduct

concerning the authenticity

of Jesus

and the New Testament.

And this is a test

that Jesus himself

recommends.

He says this

in the Gospel of John.

He says,

Anyone who chooses

to do the will of God

will find out

whether my teaching

comes from God

or whether I speak

on my own.

So my friends,

if you want

to follow Jesus,

if you want

to do God's will,

Jesus promises

you'll know,

he'll let you know

that he's true

and that he's worthy

of your trust.

Let's pray together.

Father in heaven,

we thank you

for your New Testament.

We thank you

for the people

who wrote it,

your disciples,

who labored

and suffered so much

and did so joyfully

to bring your message.

Lord, we pray

that we'd follow

their example,

that we wouldn't seek

to gain riches

or power

by your message.

We also pray

that we would be

increased in our faith,

that you would magnify

our faith

and our trust in you.

I pray for anyone

here today

who is struggling

with doubts.

I pray that you would

speak to them now,

comfort them,

reveal yourself to them.

Lord, I pray

for the church service

we're about

to fellowship

and listen to.

I pray that you'd

send your spirit

there mightily.

And we pray all this

in the mighty name

of Jesus.

Amen.

Amen.

I think we have

some time for questions

if anybody has questions.

Ben.

Those who agree

that miracles were performed

but deny Christ,

how do they reconcile it?

Great.

So the question is,

yeah, all these people

talk about the miracles

of Jesus

but they still deny Christ.

How does that make sense?

Well, they do the same things

that the Jewish leaders

in the Gospels do.

They say that he did this

by demons,

with magic.

That in the ancient world,

magic was something

that you had supernatural power

but you got it

through the help of demons.

And so they said

the same things.

That yeah, yeah, yeah,

he did this

but he used demons.

And Christians

would reply to this.

They would say like,

but someone who repents

from their sins,

who preaches righteousness,

they don't work with demons.

Jesus is preaching

to love God,

to do all these things.

And the response

by the ancient critics

was usually,

I mentioned some of them,

is that they would say,

yeah, but Jesus

and the apostles

were poor.

They were laborers.

They invited women

into their society.

They liked slaves.

That's ridiculous.

We shouldn't do that.

Again and again,

you see Celsus,

Julian say all these things.

So it's ironic to us

because what they criticized

the early Christians for

is what we boast about.

that they loved the poor.

They loved slaves.

They loved the underclasses.

But this was used by critics

as evidence

that they didn't know

what they were talking about.

They weren't rich.

They weren't powerful.

They weren't educated.

Can you go back

to the picture

of the full of that?

Yeah, that's awesome.

Okay, yeah, sure.

I don't believe you

until I see it.

I have to say that,

here we go,

that this picture doesn't,

it doesn't encompass

everything that's there.

It's part of an archaeological,

an archaeological dig

that happened.

I have not been able

to find a picture

that clearly shows

all five places.

What I do know

is that apparently

all scholars,

even skeptical scholars,

accept this now.

Often the archaeological record

takes a lot of fine,

a fine-drained analysis

to tell,

like for instance,

they can probably find

the foundations

of these porches

and find how they've crumbled.

So you won't be able

to find them standing there today.

Is this like from a helicopter

or something?

I can't tell.

It's looking down.

So over the centuries,

people paved over this

again and again and again.

And so this stuff

on the sides,

I'm not,

I would imagine,

is later material.

That's what happens

in archaeological digs.

So when I get earlier,

you have to go deeper.

And in this case,

you have to go so deep

that you're kind of

looking down now

at something that originally

was on ground level.

I have,

there's a very distinguished

professor.

He's still at Yale

and he's a professor

of the Gospel of John.

And I heard him not once

but twice say

publicly in class

that he used to think

that the Gospel of John

was all myth

and allegory.

And he said,

but then they started

digging up these pools.

And he's like,

and it really

has made me think.

And he never completes

that thought.

But he said that

without urging.

I mean,

he's just brought it up.

He's like,

yeah,

and they found this stuff.

So as far as I'm aware,

no one really disputes

the Pool of Bethesda.

There's other things

I was going to say

that people do dispute.

So I didn't mention those things.

Is that a professor

of the New Testament?

Of the New Testament?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

I just wonder,

it seems like

the New Testament

is so accurate.

Has it been embraced

as a standard

to compare other things to yet?

Or is it kind of

its nature

as a belief book

that they don't know there?

It seems like

it would be a great standard

if it's proven

to keep this wrong

with other really

books that we look to

as standards.

Has it become that

more and more?

Yeah.

That's a good question.

The question's about

do people use

the New Testament

as a source book

for evaluating

other historical people?

I agree.

And there are,

you'll find

a big divide

in the field

that New Testament scholars

that the field

is very divided.

They tend to be

very skeptical

and so usually

they fall in one

of two camps.

Either they're very skeptical

or they believe it.

If you go to archaeologists,

it's a little more

like what you're saying

that they will say,

oh, we found this.

This must be,

you know,

what was mentioned

in the New Testament

or even like,

we're going to dig here

because we think

something might be here.

They do that

with the Old Testament too.

Again,

but not all archaeologists.

Some of them

are very skeptical.

In terms of Josephus,

it's very ironic.

Luke wrote before Josephus.

We know that he was

very accurate.

Josephus wrote later.

We know that Josephus

made mistakes in part

because sometimes

he'll give the same account

of the same event

and contradict himself.

And, you know,

you'd think

if they were in tension,

scholars would go with Luke.

He's earlier.

We know he's very good,

but many of them don't.

And I think it's because

they subconsciously,

they're like,

oh, it's the Bible.

So, it's unfortunate,

but that's what happens.

Anything else?

Are you familiar

with the associates

for the biblical research?

Yeah, I've heard of them.

Yeah, yeah.

They're doing a dig in Shiloh.

I mean,

it's been going on

for a few years now.

And it's just really exciting.

Yeah.

For personal interest

and anybody wants to look that up,

what they're finding there.

Yeah, yeah.

There's digs going on

all the time.

And they find stuff.

I mean,

that's how they found