“Jesus proved he is the Son of God by his resurrection which was witnessed by hundreds”
“That “proof” is based on the scriptures “proving” scriptures. This is like me verifying that I am who I say I am. Trust me, I am. :)”
The apostle Paul makes this point with regard to the most astounding miracle story of all, the resurrection: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.” (1 Corinthians 15:13-15)
Paul, then immediately repeats his argument: “But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ [that is, have died as believers] are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:15-19)
There are many accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ appearance after the crucifixion. Matthew, Luke, John and Acts all contain vivid records (Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:13-43; John 20:11-29; Acts 1:1-11). A summary of them is a major part of one of the earliest descriptions of what the first Christians believed. Paul, in his letter to the church at Corinth in the early 50s AD., wrote:
“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles,
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
(1 Corinthians 15:1-8)
This ‘creed” is especially significant for its date. It occurs in a letter written in the early 50s but it dates to a very few years after Jesus’ death. This material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non- Pauline words, and the possibility of an Aramaic original.
Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it has an early origin, usually placing it in the AD. 30s. Paul most likely received this material during his first visit in Jerusalem with Peter and James, who are included in the list of appearances (1 Cor 15:5, 7). In fact, Fuller, Hunter, and Pannenberg are examples of critical scholars who date Paul’s receiving of this creed from three to eight years after the Crucifixion itself while people who were knowledgeable about the event, were still alive. And if Paul received it at such an early date, the creed itself would be even earlier because it would have existed before the time he was told. And the facts upon which the creed was originally based would be earlier still. We are for all practical purposes back to the original events.
The implications of the early date are: first, that these “traditions” about Jesus are “unlikely to have been distorted because the period (after the events occurred) was so brief’; and second, that it would be incredible if such traditions did not reflect the mind of Jesus who had been so recently with the disciples.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a vital event. If it happened, it means that human sins have been paid for; Christ’s death was sufficient; people can be redeemed. If he was not raised from the dead, then his life and death were no more significant than the life and death of any other good person. The whole fabric of the Christian faith is not just torn but shredded. It should be abandoned.
There is also the testimony of women. The importance of this one detail may be lost on us today. That is the fact that women are credited both with the discovery that the grave was empty and with the first post resurrection encounters with Jesus. In Jesus’ day the testimony of women was not even allowed in court. If the reports of the empty tomb were invented, it is difficult to understand why their inventors should have embellished their accounts of the discovery with something virtually guaranteed to discredit them. That women were the first witnesses must be true; there would be no other reason for including the detail.
“Biblical miracles “verified” by the Bible! Back to the scriptures being their own proof.”
If the resurrection was not true and the bible writers were just writing fiction or myths it would have been disproved long before Paul wrote.
First, if the disciples stole the body. or they paid the soldiers guarding the tomb to say that the disciples had whisked the body away (Matthew 28:11-15) then the grave clothes would have been disturbed. The disciples had no reason to steal the body; they did not believe that Jesus was going to be raised from the dead. Any plot to steal the body and perpetrate a resurrection hoax would have unraveled under the persecution as did the Watergate conspiracy.
The disciples who saw Jesus after the resurrection were not “victims of hysterical delusions” in that there were too many reported appearances under too many different conditions for this explanation to be tenable, and again, there was no expectation of his return from the dead.
Great post!
Funny how people can chalk up post-Resurrection sightings of Jesus to “hysterical delusions,” but then are perfectly willing to believe Mary appeared face-to-face with school children and talked to them a few decades ago.
Blue Duncan: The apostle Paul makes this point with regard to the most astounding miracle story of all, the resurrection: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.” (1 Corinthians 15:13-15)
I appreciate your beautiful answer, but you are doing exactly what I said when you responded to it: you are using Paul (scripture) to prove scripture!
I believe that Christ resurrected, but I have no "proof" of that other than my faith.
There are many accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ appearance after the crucifixion.
Don't you think that someone who was not a believer would have been just a tad bit curious to see the man the whole city of Jerusalem saw tortured and killed on the Cross, walking the earth as if nothing happened? But there are no extra-biblical accounts of something so outrageous and unbelievable as that!
If Jesus was such a "dangerous" element in Israel as the Bible portrays him, don't you think the Sanhendrin would not have freaked out if they found us He is back!? I think so. Yet no one seems to have been perturbed for the entire 40 days that He was appearing before people to write about it!
This "creed” is especially significant for its date. It occurs in a letter written in the early 50s but it dates to a very few years after Jesus’ death
How is that?
This material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James...
Paul uses Peter's name as Cephas in Gal 2:11, but in 2:7 he calls Peter Petros.
Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it has an early origin, usually placing it in the AD. 30s
Are you talking about the so-called Passion-Naratives? I don't buy into their date. The next closest source would be the (in)famous "Q", and that one is missing as well.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a vital event
For all of Christianity!
That women were the first witnesses must be true; there would be no other reason for including the detail.
That's very likely, but the empty tomb doesn't prove He resurrected. Besides, the accounts between the four authors of the Gospels differ so much when it comes to empty tomb, it is almost impossible to decide who to believe
If the resurrection was not true and the bible writers were just writing fiction or myths it would have been disproved long before Paul wrote.
The fact that the whole world did not flock to become Christian is proof enough to challenge any Christian's conviction! What would it take, one might ask! It is a real miracle that so many believe based on nothing but blind faith that the Gospels proclaim the truth!
First, if the disciples stole the body. or they paid the soldiers guarding the tomb to say that the disciples had whisked the body away (Matthew 28:11-15) then the grave clothes would have been disturbed
You are writing about it as if it were a news account. We really don't know what was there, since neither of the authors who write about it were there to witness it. In fact, Paul, Luke and Mark never knew Christ personally, while he was on earth.
If the Gospel accounts are correct, and He did say on the Cross "It's accomplished" (or finished, done), then no further revelation was necessary. If Christ was not the fullness of revelation, then He is not the apex.
Why would He need Paul to carry on His message, as if He left something behind undone, or as if His sacrifice on the Cross was not enough, or His ministry insufficient?
Obviously, Paul was necessary (as far as the Church was concerned!) to sell Judaism to the Greeks to put it bluntly, lest the whole movemnt die out! That's because the Jews did not buy into it, even though the NT speaks of "multitudes" of jesus' followers.
Christ had His own personal pick of the "called ones?" and their mission was with the 12 truibes of Israel, not the gentiles. No one ever spoke of evangelizing the Gentiles, until the Church started dying in Israel. And why would there be another Revelation (to "John"), as if God's revelation was not completed and fulfilled with Christ?