The argument I’m specifically trying to refute is the notion that we ought to trust the NT writers, carte blanche because of these “Top Ten” reasons like the argument that they included embarrassing and/or difficult details in their story of Jesus. Geisler and Turek are trying to create an argument in which the only issue is the credibility of the writers, and the only question is whether or not they’re 100% truthful or 100% honest. My counter is that they’re partly truthful, but are writing with a bias and an agenda, and you need to look at the specific claims they make on a case-by-case basis.

You state that the NT writers do not describe Jesus as doing anything to contradict the claim that he was the Son of God. While the Christian authors of these documents would agree with you in that regard, other ancient people would not. For example, on the basis of Deuteronomy 21:23 many ancient Jews would believe that Jesus was under God’s curse and thus could not have been the Son of God.

You then state that none of the embarrassing details compromise Jesus’ personal integrity. This may be true but those stories would raise red flags in a listener’s mind. If Jesus was so righteous why was he killed for a criminal offense? If Jesus was so wise why did his family think he was crazy? If someone is going to make up a story they make up a story that does not require them to explain such things. Thus you’re wrong when you assert, “If the passages they cite are not genuine problems for Christianity, then there’s no problem with the NT writers including them.” The point is that they included stories that could be (and were) perceived as problematic. A myth-maker would not bother to do that.

We see this fact in action in 1 Corinthians 1:23 where Paul says that preaching Christ crucified is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. It makes no sense to believe that he (or some other Christian) created a fictitious tale of crucifixion to hinder his own missionary goals. It makes far more sense to believe that Paul knew Jesus was crucified and that he did the best he could in spreading Christianity despite the difficulties the crucifixion created.

Though not pertinent to the criterion of embarrassment, you make a false statement when you say, “if Jesus does have anything to be embarrassed about, then he’s not the ‘spotless Lamb’ Christians make him out to be.” I imagine that the vast majority of people would be quite embarrassed if they, though innocent of any crime, were publicly crucified. Embarrassment is not solely the result of one’s moral failing.

Admittedly the criterion of embarrassment does not (in itself) prove Christianity true. But it does prove that the evangelists had respect for the historical facts.