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,
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.
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.
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 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
the ring of Pontius Pilate.
It's in some destruction layer
when Jerusalem was destroyed
in year 70.
It's probably not literally his ring.
It's probably the ring
of one of his slaves
or servants
that would stamp,
you know,
documents with it.
But it might have been him,
but it's a testimony
to his existence.
And it's ironic
that when that was found,
you know,
people made kind of
a big deal about it,
but we knew about Pontius Pilate
for so long.
I mean,
we have all these
literary records
from non-Christians
that talk about him,
both Jewish and pagan,
that are from the first century
and the early second century as well.
And we have that inscription
of Pontius Pilate.
But this just kind of adds to it.
Anything else?
I think it might be about time
to wrap up.
So next week,
we're going to talk about
the canonicity of the New Testament.
We're going to talk about
how the New Testament
was put together.
So be sure you come for that.
Thanks.