The Earliest Source for the Resurrection of Jesus
What is the earliest and strongest evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? Many scholars cite this early creed in 1 Corinthians 15. This video is part of the grad class I teach at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University): “In Defense of the Resurrection.”
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)
READ: Evidence that Demands a Verdict: https://amzn.to/3u7iCRd
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: @sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: @seanmcdowell
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
The ONLY way to truly believe in the resurrection would be to really, really WANT to believe in the resurrection. It defies all reason, and, honestly, would be a TERRIBLE truth even if it WERE true. God becoming flesh simply to come down and purposefully have himself killed so that he could THEN AND ONLY THEN forgive humans for the way he created them (and knew they would act), is horrifying. The resurrection is rather bizarre if taken literally.
Watch Gary Habermas he is the number one scholar on the resurrection and yes with Evidence and facts!
A creed is an OBJECT of faith, not a BASIS for faith.
If you recite the apostle's creed, is that proof that God the father, creator of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus Christ is his son, does that make it true? You're simply stating what you believe.
If that’s all you’ve got then you’ve got no more than the Muslims who believe that Mohammed was raised up to heaven on the back of a white horse which is written in their book. Did it ever occur to you that when you present mythology as literal truth then you keep open minded people away from God.
Dr. Sean McDowell
Debates Source for the Resurrection of Jesus with "Dr. Bart D. Ehrman "or Matt Dillahunty ,Aron Ra,Dan Barker,Ect.
There is not one written eyewitness account of Jesus during his lifetime. Strange since he was famous at birth, because wise men expected to see the future king of Jews who was born from a virgin married mother. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, five hundred years ago, has maintained that the gospels were originally written in Greek from 70 to 140 CE (Mark after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John no earlier than 140 CE). This proves that they were not written by Christ's apostles, disciples or by any of the early Christians. Others say: “There is no proof of the Gospels existing before 130 CE” Jesus is depicted as hugely popular in the gospels. Yet he is unrecorded by non-Biblical historians. Paul was the first one to write about Jesus around 60CE; but he, like everyone else, never saw Jesus. He experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus.
I think some folks may be a bit confused, and or brainwashed. I just can't find any logical reason to believe in ancient literature because some authors wrote about shepherds having hallucinations and hearing voices thousands of years ago in the middle east. Where are the miracles now? How many children have been cured at the children's hospital? You know how many limbless veterans I've known to miraculously re-spawn new limbs? NONE. Why were these miracles only during this time period? A period in time where rubbing mud in the eyes cured blindness, or spitting in the wound cured it.The reasons we're here are unknown. It's that simple. WE DON'T KNOW. There is no logical, practical, or moral reason to cling to these ideas
The evidence for the risen Jesus is huge. I will enjoy the Christian life. Watch Inspiring Philosophy.
The bible was written by masons
And how exactly did Paul "receive" this "creed." Wasn't it by revelation and not by testimony? (Check your scriptures Xians) In the passage Sean cites above, Paul doesn't say Jesus was crucified. He simply says he died. (suspicious?) Moreover, in the rest of his epistles, Paul never refers to the crucifixion as having taken place on earth at the hands of the Romans or the Jews. Curiously, Paul who only ever used the word "apostle" and never disciple (in his authentic letters) states he only knew Peter as an apostle and only knew of other unnamed apostles as having received the gospel by revelation, not by testimony. As to the 500 I've longed asked, "where is their written testimony?" You would think that at least ONE of them would have written something down. I mean Xians frequently assert the unimpeachable historicity of their scriptures while boasting of their authenticity. (not unlike a devout Muslim, Mormon or Orthodox Jew) Sean does make a really good point about how at the time of the penning of 1 Corinthians there certainly were people who were alive and living who knew Jesus. But again I ask: Where is their writing? Where is the contemporaneous, manuscript evidence corroborating the life, death or resurrection of J.C.?
So the best evidence isn't evidence… Holy crap.
the Shroud of Turin is another amazing proof of evidence the first photo ever taken in 3d ……..2000 years ago
Please, never accept jury duty…
I thought Mary Magdalene saw Jesus first after the resurrection, but it’s not in this creed. She’s not even mentioned?
I spent the majority of the video trying to figure out what that image is on the outside of his laptop. 🤔
the importance of the creed is that Christians did believe in something and evidence that there were Christians. It is not evidence of Jesus Christ, son of God existing at all. At best it may show some possiblity for some deluded fellow who thought he was the messiah. there is no evidence of the claims in 1 Corinthians 15.
"12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?"
Because a proclamation is just a story if there is no evidence.
Sean's claim is no more valid than saying that since we have a mention of magical events in a book, then those events have to have happened.
It saddens me to think that in this day and age, people still take seriously the claim a first century Jewish preacher rose from the dead.
What next , the evidence Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.
People really need to learn how to separate religion from reality
might take him more serious without the spiderman shirt…time to grow up
When Dr. McDowell’s Father, Josh McDowell, came to speak at our campus many years ago, my Wife used our baby stroller to take Dr. McDowell, then a baby, for a stroll and a picnic at the beach park with his Mother, Dottie McDowell. Now he’s a ‘chip off the old block’ and taking up the defense of the Gospel just as his parents are doing. What a testimony to their good parenting and God’s Grace,
Coming from a bible, that has no original texts, knowbody has ever seen or read the original, there are no original signintries of authors so nobody even knows who wrote the bible it is the most edited, exaggerated, misinterpreted, corrupted book ever written, you also realise that a claim is not evidence , facts are evidence, claims like in the bible are assumptions at best . Metaphors and interpretations are not evidence. The bible relies heavily on your superstitious imagination.
From a skeptic; if a deceiver can enter the paradise of Eden and be on page 3 of your holy text. The pulpit side chat you just gave is of a Saul/Paul whom writes down I Cor 15 hearsay, also see's vision of light whom also writes II Cor 11 Satan can appear as an angel of light… how likley is deception? Faith enough or build a foundation that the seeds of deception you couldn't have just perpetuated, please advise?
Strange how what Paul says here doesn’t line up with any of the appearances of Jesus in the gospels 🤔
The other issue is that Paul’s account of his meeting the disciples doesn’t line up with Acts.
Paul is saying he heard these from visions. He only spent a couple weeks with 2 apostles- Peter and James.
Likewise, these are claims made by Paul. Jesus appeared to 500… He claims he appeared to the Peter and James. These are claims of man who heard voices and saw visions whose writing show clear indications of severe mental health issues.
Now, do we always listen to everything we’re told by the insane person on the street corner saying they saw god in a vision and god is continuing to speak to them or only when our pre conceived notions want us to and our cognitive dissonance disallows us to?
Lastly….
To accept Paul’s word here but reject other claims from other faiths such as Mohammad receiving information for the Quran then we have a classic case of a double / hypocritical standard.
Please don’t check your minds at the door when analyzing your faith. Critique it daily and understand why you believe what you believe and why you don’t believe what you don’t believe. The overlap, many may find out, is astounding.
In the creed Paul basically says "Jesus appeared to them and appeared to me last." He uses the same verb for each "appearance" in the list as if to say they were all the same type. Well, since the appearance to Paul was a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) or a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26:19) then in follows that a physical encounter with Jesus' resurrected body was not required in order to claim he "appeared." This calls into question if they really saw Jesus or just had some sort of subjective spiritual experience. Paul never gives evidence anyone saw Jesus before he went to heaven nor does he ever reference a separate and distinct ascension. This is important because Paul is the only firsthand source we have by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus – "appeared to me." This experience was clearly a vision (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he does not give any indication that his experience was different from the others. I will demonstrate below how the Resurrection appearance narratives grow more embellished over time.
Resurrection refuted.
1. The origin of the belief in Jesus' resurrection can be explained by contemporary beliefs of apocalyptic Judaism combined with how other religious groups react after their beliefs are falsified (cognitive dissonance). Here is a plausible sequence of events that explains why the early followers of Jesus would apply the concept of Resurrection to him without it actually occurring.
A. There was already an anticipated expectation of the Messiah accompanying the resurrection in some form or another – 4Q521. Luke 7:22, Matthew 11:2-5. https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/
B. Jesus (a Messianic figure) preached/predicted the resurrection – supported by the gospels.
C. Jesus and his followers both believed they were living in the end times (when the resurrection would occur) – supported by the gospels and apocalyptic Jewish writings.
D. Jesus was executed.
E. After cognitive dissonance, theological innovation and discovering this was "foretold in the Scriptures" all along (1 Cor 15:3-4), the Jesus sect just applied their pre-existing belief in resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it – 1 Cor 15:20. https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/cognitive-dissonance-resurrection-jesus/
F. Very soon some of his followers claimed to have "visions" of him – supported by the fact that Paul places his "vision" of Jesus (Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19) in the list of "appearances" – 1 Cor 15:5-8. This indicates physical interactions with a revived body were not required to believe in a resurrection.
E and F are interchangeable. This explains all the data. If the imminent expectation of the resurrection was already around, some followers coming to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected "a little early" is no longer implausible. It's just a natural reaction to his death. Maintaining that Jesus' followers would just abandon the movement ignores the examples we have of other religious groups doubling down on their beliefs after what would seem to disconfirm them – see examples in link for E.
Moreover, Mark 6:14-16 relays an interesting tradition that Herod and some others were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" which, if historical, proves the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure existed in Jesus' time and culture before his death. This is interesting because both John and Jesus were apocalyptic preachers who preached a similar message to the same groups of people and both had been unjustly executed. There is also evidence that some thought John might be the Messiah and that his sect continued on after his death. If people were applying the concept to John then it's no surprise that the same circle of people would apply the concept to Jesus after his death. All this provides a perfectly plausible natural explanation for the origin of belief in the resurrection that doesn't actually entail God raising Jesus from the dead. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8gs86v/the_origin_of_belief_in_jesus_resurrection_can_be/
2. The original belief in Jesus' resurrection/exaltation was that he went to heaven simultaneously with the resurrection or immediately afterwards leaving no room for physical earthly encounters. Phil 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20, Heb. 1:3, 10:12-13, 12:2 can all be plausibly interpreted as a simple one-step resurrection/exaltation to heaven without any intermediate earthly physical appearances. The physical resurrection to the earth where Jesus remains for 40 days then ascends were later developments (see below). This means the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were necessarily spiritual encounters of the exalted Lord from heaven and the gospel depictions are all necessarily false. If apologists want to claim that the original view was that Jesus' resurrected corpse actually walked the earth then they need to provide evidence from Paul (the earliest source) which indicates that. The problem is, Paul doesn't give any evidence for this which means they are necessarily reading that assumption into the text. So since the earliest data can be equally interpreted to mean a simultaneous or immediate exaltation to heaven then the apologist has the burden of proof to show Paul believed otherwise. This observation renders the belief in a physical resurrection irrelevant because even if they believed Jesus was physically resurrected, it does not necessarily follow that they really saw the Resurrected Jesus (because he was believed to be in heaven when he "appeared" to them). https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/839xt6/jesus_resurrection_was_originally_understood_as/
3. Second Temple Judaism was a superstitious visionary culture in which people claimed to have "visions" of God and angels quite regularly. This provides a cultural background context which raises the prior probability that the "appearances" of Jesus were originally thought of as "visions" or spiritual revelations from heaven. In fact, the "son of man" figure from Dan. 7:13 was said to have been experienced in a vision. Since Jesus was identified with the "son of man" then it is just expected people would claim to have visions of him. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8iq6k9/the_cultural_background_of_judaism_supports_the/
4. Empty tombs and miraculous "missing body" stories were part of a recognizable and established literary theme in antiquity. It was a marker used to convey apotheosis/translation of a hero or important person. Since there is no actual independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from Mark), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity. The original story in Mark just has Jesus' body missing from the tomb without an appearance narrative. There were plenty of stories where other Jewish prophets "go missing" so we would just expect the same from the storytellers about Jesus. An extremely interesting Greek example is the novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE (before Mark's gospel) due to a possible mention by Persius "To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe" – (1,134). Just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/
5. The Resurrection story evolves over time which is consistent with legendary growth. It starts with "spiritual visions" of Jesus from heaven in the earliest firsthand material then gradually evolves to a more physical resurrection over time in the sources which are not firsthand. In order to refute this argument one would have to show it to be implausible and replace it with a better historical hypothesis that explains why the accounts look so much like a legend evolving without it actually being one. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
6. The Resurrection argument fails its own burden of proof. The only evidence for the resurrection that actually matters are the claimed "post-mortem appearances" since there would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Everything else is just a distraction. Appealing to things like the empty tomb, so called "prophecy fulfillment" and alleged martyrdom stories, etc are all irrelevant red herrings since they do not directly support the hypothesis that a dead man became alive again. Thus, the burden of proof is on the one who claims Jesus' resurrection actually happened, or put simply, they need to show these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Well, according to the earliest evidence, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." Paul makes no distinction in regards to the nature, quality, or type of appearances. He uses the same verb ὤφθη (ōphthē) for each one as if to equate them and makes no reference to a separate and distinct Ascension between the appearances. This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances" because it totally changes the meaning of "appeared." Even though Jesus wasn't physically present on the earth, one could still claim that they just "experienced his presence" and that counted as "seeing Jesus." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream! Thus, the resurrection argument will always fail to meet the burden of proof – "they really saw Jesus alive again after his death." https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/gfx0n0/the_resurrection_argument_fails_to_meet_its/
who else NT Wright and who else i didn't catch the other name.
Yeah the 3 dozen or so creeds are potentially the best evidence for the resurrection. Also the link to Galatians timing it back to just after the resurrection. Luke was interviewing witnesses.
Paul also heard the witness of Stephen.