Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

anoncoholic


Finding God isn't as difficult as you make it, it is as easy as seeking with a true heart.

Well either you can show me your god or you are accusing my of not having a true heart. I eagerly await your proof.

anoncoholic


can science explain that pic? Can science explain what is contained within its pixels?

There is more to that picture than meets the eye...

Actually yes, quite easily. Have you never read a science book?

windword
Here is another example of a Christian apologetic who willingly lies to push his point.

This is really getting old. I have told you and told you and told you that Jesus was real just as Alexander the Great, Nero and Caesar. Applying the same historical standards they all [plus Jesus] were real.

windword

The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

I see the wrote perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. There are no perhaps with Jesus. He was real just as other ancient people. He was the Messiah, He was the Son of God and He performed miracle and rose from the dead. He was a moral teacher.

windword
Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
rationalrevolution.net...

Again, there is no mythology. It's not a fact and close examination puts the dying and rising God's after Jesus resurrection. Horus and the others have nothing in common with Jesus.

windword
Actually, there are many important facts that support this conclusion. First let's look at an outline of some of the major points in this case:

The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it

No important facts support that. Mark was written first, the others got the same info from the same witnesses. Then the others found more evidence apart from Mark.

windword
The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction

That's just an excuse because no one want's to interact with the data because they are lazy. If it was fiction, why did the Early Church Fathers state that Mark wrote his book?
The Authorship of the Gospel of Mark
The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that Mark, the close associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark.
Carson and Moo explain the significance of this testimony,
“Moreover, no dissenting voice from the early church regarding the authorship of the second gospel is found…While we must not uncritically accept everything that early Christian writers say about the origins of the New Testament, we should not reject what they say without good reason.” (1)
(1) Carson, D.A., Moo, Douglas J., An Introduction to the New Testament, Zondervan, 2005, p.174

windword
Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures

As I have replied to you in the past. There is no mistranslations of the Bible. See my previous post about Isaiah 53 and John 18.

windword
Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically.

No metaphors. Jesus really died and rose from the dead for our sins.
Five facts are agreed upon by most critical scholars that have studied Jesus.
1. Jesus was crucified and buried.

2. Jesus disciples believed that they saw Him after His resurrection.

3. Paul the Apostle was an enemy of the Church. That's enemy attestation.

4. Jesus' brother James was skeptical but suddenly changed and died for his belief in Jesus.

5. The tomb was found empty.

windword
The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record.

Actually they verify the historical record and historians use the New Testament Gospels for study.

windword
The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life

That's just a lame excuse for Jesus not being real. All historical scholars believe that Paul was real and wrote at
least 6-7 of his epistles.

windword
Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person.

After Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus with Jesus and after some years he went and visited Peter and James.
They saw Jesus, lived with Him, walked with Him, ate with Him and saw Him post resurrection. He was real person and
Paul met them.

windword
There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime

Still doesn't mean that Jesus is not real.

windword
Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea

Philo was a philosopher. Plus, he didn't write about other important people.

windword
All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims.

That's not true. Most Christians didn't have any idea of the non-Christian sources.

windword
There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories

The Pharisees wanted the tomb guarded by Roman soldiers and their was seal on the tomb. The tomb was in Jerusalem and everybody knew where it was. Plus, it was Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin.

windword
There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"

Tell that to the Apostles that died believing in Him. They wouldn't have died for a lie. Plus, we have the early creeds of Christianity that proves there was no conflict. There was no conflict between Paul and the other Apostles. They had the same message.

windword
The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"

I'm guessing you got hurt by the Catholics?
Don't let people or churches who have wronged you keep you from Jesus. Alot of people will let that happen to them.

reply to post by anoncoholic


Let me say its not important for others to believe you. Its what you believe thats important if god spoke to you in his way more power to you. Take that as your personal message since he would speak to anyone in a way they could understand at least id like to think so anyway. Your way just doesnt work for other people me included but not seeing what you see doesnt mean its not there. It was obviously an answer to your prayers and not others. Let me give you one piece of advice however sometimes when dealing with beliefs they should remain personal for example ive had some things which shaped my beliefs. But there mine and mine alone I could no more convince you im right unless you lived my life and had my experiences. See this is why major religions dont really work for me trust me i examined alot of them in detail i can discuss the Bible, the Torah, the Quran,And even more obscure such as the Tripiṭaka my personal favorite. But one thing i learned is all religions have certain beliefs in common and they are all very personal to the believer. Good luck on your journey wherever it might lead you.

I saw this too late to edit it so let try again, just for clarification.

BO XIAN
I gather that you, personally, have NEVER been the least bit

afraid of being wrong.

You know what they say about people that assume?
I have been wrong many times and I am well aware that I am nowhere near perfect, nor always right.

Yet, you fiercely assail other notions as arrogant.

Not even close. That ONE PARTICULAR statement comes off as arrogant, not all other notions. Context means a lot here.

Fascinating.

It really kind of is fascinating how much BS you attributed to me that is blatantly wrong and has no actual basis. How does one get that way?

The Book declares that the reverential awe/fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Some folks never approach the front gate to the lane to the porch to the screen door of wisdom. But then, they probably don't think they need wisdom . . . being so omniscient and all within their own little world.

I was raised as a Christian and have read your bible. Books say lots of things. Stephen Kings says there are giant monsters in the fog. I never saw a reason to just believe that.

Of course, that wouldn't dare to be called arrogant.

LOLOLOL.

Feel free to laugh and call me arrogant but you need to actually show why and this post fails to do that. Seems a lot like random angry poo flinging to me.

Some things might be arrogant . . . unless they are a correct description of objective reality.

Time will tell.

Yet the specific post I replied to was nothing but arrogant. I am not sure you actually read anything but my reply and then got angry and decided to lash out about it. How Jesusy of you.

Krazysh0t

anoncoholic

Krazysh0t

dragonridr

Krazysh0t
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

Deny or rationalize away the pareidolia all you want, it still doesn't mean that isn't what you are experiencing. The fact that you prayed beforehand is actually fueling your pareidolia. It is already in your head to see something, so when the sky happens to take a form similar to what you are looking for, you see it. I'm sorry that you are in denial, but it's true.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Do you ever go fishing? the reason i ask is i think you swallowed that hook line and sinker. Think about it youll figure it out.

Yea the goofy reason the person I quoted is the likely explanation for what they were seeing and not the most obvious one that it was all in their head thanks to a predisposition to want to see those things. You go ahead and keep believing that. I think that YOU bought this tripe hook, line, and sinker.

you can think whatever you want of me but the truth is what God thinks of you. Further, even atheists can see the face and theme portrayed so how does your explanation fit that mold?

I already told you. It's called pareidolia. Being atheist doesn't mean they can't see facelike objects. If you had read the links I had provided, you'd have learned that already.

As for the rest of you post. See ya, sorry that your arguing abilities aren't good enough that you take offense to some stranger on the internet. Don't worry though, there will be some other religious type to take your place.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

you are so wrong in your assessment of me.

... I have had many Prayers answered. And what would it take to convince you? A parlor trick?

You do not comprehend that God hears every Prayer, every thought, every desire.

You do not desire to know God thus He doesn't reveal Himself to you.

It is understandable in this day and age when so much confusion reigns over truth... where greed reigns over justice... where division reigns over Faith. Because of the lack of Faith belief is impotent.

... as are the churches and that is why the book of Revelation begins with the 7 letters.

Like I said, within those pixels is the signature of God.

Let me put it into words so you can dive into it and see if you can find a few pixels within what ... millions?

... but then you will still refuse to see and claim it is all in my mind. For you, disregard the following as it would be a waste of time...

In the reflection in the water if you zoom in, there is a face that looks like it is breathing a cloud ... following that cloud left leads to a path that leads up but is closed up above... further to the left of that path is a house that has a dividing line cut through the left hand side of it... beside the house are two figures and further to the left is another path going up that leads to a figure in black with an aura (John the Baptist and reading it left to right now) who is anointing a figure (Jesus) that then has a spirit embedded with Him... He then looks like he grows in size and stands with His arms at His side with His elbows bent forward and an untied sacrificial sash is draped over them... to the right of that it is feint but He can be seen kneeling (giving Himself freely), becoming a 3 ( the trinity), becoming a skull ( the Holy Spirit) ... to the right of this is that line that divided His house that branches off and becomes a building with that symbol I mentioned and the number 7. Look for the 7 as it is the easiest to spot.

There is more in that picture, but why should I even care about whether you come to see it or not? I don't. You think I lack the intestinal fortitude to Smith / Corona with you at dawn w/e. The truth is this is already ancient history to me.

Whether you see it or nor is inconsequential to me.

My Prayers I will keep to myself as something so personal as a conversation with God and His reply while they might affect you, are none of your business.

well done and goodbye

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


with the current freezing conditions in the US, how would the scribes of the days of jesus describe what is happening right now. with their limited technology and none of todays meterological devices, how would they describe this big freeze happening right now in the US... would they interpret it as some form of vengence by a lord, or a punishment by a devil as opposed to the natural occurance it really is.... could their uneducated prognostics be what we read today over 2000 years on from when they were written... ? much more modern historical events have been re-written since they were first reported on.. hmpf!! when are we going to move forward on this space ball, before it disappears completely and every event that occurred on it, is diminished and lost to the realms of eternity as if it never existed at all... hmm that makes it all irrelevant doesn't it, mans complet existence gone and lost and never to be known about unless another life form is aware of our existence, who will miss us, or should i say who will remember we existed, as no other life form will miss us. on that we can rely...

texastig
This is really getting old. I have told you and told you and told you that Jesus was real just as Alexander the Great, Nero and Caesar. Applying the same historical standards they all [plus Jesus] were real.

Please educate me. Many of have asked for historical proof of this Jesus and have only been met with angry, argumentative retorts but nothing in the way of actual proof.

Instead of getting mad, just actually make your case.

texastig
No metaphors. Jesus really died and rose from the dead for our sins.
Five facts are agreed upon by most critical scholars that have studied Jesus.
1. Jesus was crucified and buried.

2. Jesus disciples believed that they saw Him after His resurrection.

3. Paul the Apostle was an enemy of the Church. That's enemy attestation.

4. Jesus' brother James was skeptical but suddenly changed and died for his belief in Jesus.

5. The tomb was found empty.

What do you mean by "critical scholars?" Can you name them for us? No historian actually believes or can confirm any of this. The only people on the planet to make such claims are Christians.

Gosh...think they might have a motive to confirm what they already believe?

Please name names. Let us all discuss these "scholars" to see if they are legit, or just biased Christians promoting their myth. I eagerly await your FACTUAL and CONFORMABLE reply.

Buttonlip

texastig
This is really getting old. I have told you and told you and told you that Jesus was real just as Alexander the Great, Nero and Caesar. Applying the same historical standards they all [plus Jesus] were real.

Please educate me. Many of have asked for historical proof of this Jesus and have only been met with angry, argumentative retorts but nothing in the way of actual proof.

Instead of getting mad, just actually make your case.

Instead of seeking God or Jesus from others why didn't you search within yourself? He knocks on your heart and if you have it in you all you have to do is answer the call. It took nothing from you other than love and yet why are people so argumentative over the only hope they ever had?

w/e, you guys figure it out

I'm gone

reply to post by Buttonlip


Sounds like some silly assumptions have commandeered your thinking yet again.

However, I have no great passion to try and convince the "omniscient-in-their-own-eyes and unconvincable" of much of anything.

In terms of the Bible, all it has declared and recorded will prove utterly true . . . much of it on multiple levels and in multiple ways.

Stay tuned.

Nothing's over until God says it is.

BTW, my faith is not at all contingent on convincing anyone of anything.

Besides, Holy Spirit has most of that as His turf.

And many folks even He seems to have given up on long ago.

Small wonder.

reply to post by Buttonlip


The case has been made solidly from a number of quality sources in this thread many posts ago.

Small wonder but the "omniscient" ones--the acolytes, high priests and bishops of

The Religion of Scientism

aren't about to be bothered by the facts, much less convinced.

Logic doesn't seem to have much influence on them, either.

Neither does historical scholarship nor the science of the critique and examination of ancient documents.

Actually, not much of anything hinders their rebellion, stubbornness, rigidities and arrogance in the least.

Yet, they seem to foolishly think that the bulk of the Christians on here are so foolish as to persistently bat our heads against their brick walls--particularly ones so utterly devoid of critical thinking skills.

LOLOLOL.

windword


What you don't understand is that I'm not talking about the "Church" or what the "Church" accepted. I"m saying that during the life of Jesus, and shortly thereafter, if he existed, his followers were NOT called Christians.

LOL....so they were called Nazarenes, or Notzrim, which MEANS Christian...but they weren't called Christians? MIND=BLOWN. And when exactly do you think the events described in the book of Acts actually took place? From my understanding, Herod II was still alive at this point. Herod died in 44 AD....So the math is pretty easy....A decade at most...is that not "shortly thereafter" in your mind?

and...
Quoting a source that says all Christians were called Nazarenes is not proof. Where is the evidence to prove this claim? Is it open to the public? Or is that supposed evidence now gone and we're relying on a SINGLE guy writing 4 centuries later...? Isn't it funny how the NT gospels were written much closer to the time of Christ than the words of Epiphanius...but yet we take Epiphanius' "all Christians were called Nazarenes" blanket statement as factual and the gospel WRITERS(PLURAL!) as pure BS?....

Let me wrap my head around that one more time...
1 guy...Epiphanius....states all Christians were called Nazarenes, 4 CENTURIES later...and you accept this beautiful blanket statement as credible...
meanwhile...
Multiple writers(8 traditionally, but its still open for debate) write the books of the New Testament with the very latest book being written generally less than a century later...and you fail to accept them as credible....

THAT seems ODDLY IGNORANT to me.

Acts 22:8
"And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'

biblehub.com...

And again, choosing the interpretation of the verse that fits your shoe doesn't work either. This is why original Greek is important to study and know...Nazareth or Nazarene indicates PLACE not TITLE.

Notice how the ghost of Jesus calls himself the "Nazarene", not the "Christ"? You have to understand, by now, that Christ is a Roman Catholic/pagan construct that was interpolated, added and substituted while the "Church" was busy killing those pesky, heretical Nazarenes.

Early "Christians" were NOT called "Christians" and Jesus, if he existed, was never called, nor would he have accepted the title "Christ". Jesus Christ never existed!

One more time, stating your opinion does not make it fact.

Let's really get down to it here....

The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos)or "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos) which means "anointed one". In the Greek Septuagint, christos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning "one who is anointed."

So we see "messiah"and "Christ" are equivalent words...both meaning anointed one or one who is anointed...We also see that the Greek word Christian(follower) comes from the Greek christos, which again, means ANOINTED ONE....so Christians are "followers of the anointed one"...You tracking?

28They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets." 29And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ." 30And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Excerpts are from Mark 8:29; John 4:25-26 and Mark 14:61-62.

So there we have it...Jesus was called THE CHRIST....and THE MESSIAH... EARLIER THAN THE 4TH CENTURY MIND YOU....(not to mention the multiple usages of the word "Nazarene", which in almost EVERY INSTANCE in the Greek....is structured as a geographical name....
such as
1)Loukios o Kurenaios (Λούκιος ὁ Κυρηναῖος) "Lucius the Cyrenian/Lucius of Cyrene"
2)Trofimos o Efesios ("Trophimus the Ephesian, Τρόφιμος ὁ Ἐφέσιος)
3)Maria Magdalene ("Mary the woman of Magdala")
and
4)Saulos Tarseus ("Saul the Tarsian")

But let's get back to this little Gem....

Early "Christians" were NOT called "Christians" and Jesus, if he existed, was never called, nor would he have accepted the title "Christ". Jesus Christ never existed!

So with this "new"(Mark 8:29; John 4:25-26 and Mark 14:61-62) evidence here for you to examine...would you mind telling me again how Jesus was never called the Christ nor would he have accepted the title....

Buttonlip


What do you mean by "critical scholars?" Can you name them for us? No historian actually believes or can confirm any of this. The only people on the planet to make such claims are Christians.

Gosh...think they might have a motive to confirm what they already believe?

Please name names. Let us all discuss these "scholars" to see if they are legit, or just biased Christians promoting their myth. I eagerly await your FACTUAL and CONFORMABLE reply.

It's funny really...I can't help but laugh at this response, no harm intended...

I just find it insanely ironic that you posted this...BECAUSE
The only people on the planet to say that Jesus Christ never existed are nonbelievers.
Think they might have a motive as well?
Let us all discuss those "scholars" as well to see if THEY are legit, or just biased nonbelievers promoting their own vomit.....

It's a sick carousel ride my friend...round and round we go and where we stop, is THE SAME FRIGGIN PLACE WE STARTED!!!!

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I don't believe Windword is a big fan of the
truth when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ.
I can find historical scholar after scholar who ridicules this belief
to no end. He is proving at the same time just who the brainwashed
sheeple really are.

: “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of
intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”
Mater ( 2005 )

reply to post by randyvs


Randyvs, I would like to add to what you posted.
“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”
― John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


There you go again, trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. It's far easier to disprove the Bible, using the Bible. Your sources were written decades if not centuries after the fact. Jesus, if he existed, and his merry men didn't speak Greek and weren't influenced by pagan ideas.

Look, you can go back read all my posts, where I have already addressed and answered your questions and explained my position. I'm not going to post the same citations over and over. It is a fact that "Christ" is a pagan concept that was used for hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus to describe "good" people, teachers, leaders, deities, disciples and initiates of pagan mystery schools. Even John's LOGOS, is pagan concept, demonstrated by Pythagoras and expounded by Plato, stolen by Christians.

Jesus the Nazarene may have existed, maybe not. The message of "true" Christianity is that the "Christ" is within us all. This is a pagan concept, not a Jewish ideal of the prophesied Messiah. I could go on and on about the schism between the Essenes, Pharisees and Saducees, Gnostics and Catholics, but that's another thread.

When confronted with the truth from a multitude of ancient historical sources . . .

as well as logical analysis . . .

as well as internal consistencies among the quality sources . . .

etc. etc. etc.

The brainwashed acolytes of the pesudo-objectivist, pseudo-scientific Religion of Scientism sorts

persist in their irrational blathering from shallow sources; irrational sources;

angry, hostile sources; rebellious sources; arrogant-to-the-max arbitrarily pseudo-omniscient sources;

. . .

all spouting the DOGMA of the Religion of Scientism AS THOUGH it had infinitely more than a gnat's fart's worth of a leg to stand on when it hasn't even that much.

And, they seem to utterly fail to have a shred of insight into how much they have been successfully seduced by the oligarchy the last 60 years into swallowing the tailor-made Kool-Aid from hell.

Fascinating--sociologically and psychologically--except that it's so frightfully significant vis a vis eternally.

windword
There you go again, trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. It's far easier to disprove the Bible, using the Bible. Your sources were written decades if not centuries after the fact. Jesus, if he existed, and his merry men didn't speak Greek and weren't influenced by pagan ideas.

Fact: Paul the Apostle wrote Galatians 25 years after Jesus resurrection.
Fact: Early Creeds:
Do critical scholars agree on the date of this pre-Pauline creed? Even radical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann think that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion . . . no later than three years after the death of Jesus.” Similarly, Michael Goulder contends that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection appearances “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”

An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to AD 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation. No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”

— Gary Habermas, “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts,” God is Great, God is Good (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 212.

windword
It is a fact that "Christ" is a pagan concept that was used for hundreds of years before the advent of Jesus to describe "good" people, teachers, leaders, deities, disciples and initiates of pagan mystery schools. Even John's LOGOS, is pagan concept, demonstrated by Pythagoras and expounded by Plato, stolen by Christians.

It is not a fact that Christ is a pagan concept. Christ means the anointed one, i.e. Messiah

windword
Jesus the Nazarene may have existed, maybe not. The message of "true" Christianity is that the "Christ" is within us all. This is a pagan concept, not a Jewish ideal of the prophesied Messiah. I could go on and on about the schism between the Essenes, Pharisees and Saducees, Gnostics and Catholics, but that's another thread.

Jesus existed, no 'maybe's'. The real and true message of Christianity is: John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

(1 Cor. 15:3b-5) Was this an early Christian statement of faith?

CLAIM: Scholars claim that this excerpt from 1 Corinthians 15 is actually a very early Christian statement of faith. Is this the case?

RESPONSE: There are multiple reasons for affirming that this section of 1 Corinthians (15:3b-5) is an incredibly early Christian declaration:

First, Paul uses the language of “delivered” and “received.” This is technical language that Pharisees used for transmitting sacred tradition. Paul was trained as a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), and so he uses the language of Pharisaic transmission (Gal. 1:14). Michael Licona writes, “Mark and Josephus report that a zeal for tradition was standard for Pharisees, a group to which Paul had belonged.”[1] At the very least, Paul is claiming that he is passing on a message about Christ that was not unique to him. Otherwise, he never would have written this.

Second, a number of expressions in this passage do not occur in Paul’s writing. The expression “according to the Scriptures” does not occur anywhere else in Paul’s letters. Licona writes,

The phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ is absent elsewhere in the Pauline corpus and the New Testament, where we read (“it is written”).

With a lone exception in Galatians 1:4 (“for our sins”) is absent elsewhere in Paul (and the rest of the New Testament), who prefers the singular ‘sin.’

On the third day’ is only here in Paul. In Paul, the term ‘appeared to’ or ‘was seen’ is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16. ‘The Twelve’ is only here in Paul. Elsewhere he uses ‘the apostles.’[2]

Third, we see parallelism through this section. Paul repeats the expressions “and that…” and “according to the Scriptures…” multiple times in this short section. This might not be easy to see when it is written out in our Bibles. But, if we rewrite 1 Corinthians 15 in a stanza, it becomes clear:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried,

and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

The structure of the language implies that this was a declaration or a statement of faith for the early Christians. For a more modern example, consider the Declaration of Independence. This also has a similar literary structure, and it was written for the same purpose: to lay out the basic beliefs of the seceding colonies (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…”). This short statement of faith from 1 Corinthians 15 outlined the basic beliefs and facts of the newly formed Christian faith –written in a structured stanza.

Fourth, Paul uses Peter’s Aramaic name –not his Greek name. The use of “Cephas” (instead of Peter) supports an early origin, rather than a later dating.

Fifth, this short excerpt contains language not typical of Paul. The expressions: “According to the Scriptures… (kata tas grafas versus Paul’s typical kathos gegraptai),” “for our sins,” “he has been raised,” “the third day,” and “he was seen” are all expressions not typical of Paul.

Some scholars hold that this was actually the first Christian creed, which was verbally transmitted throughout the early Christian community.[3] This stanza was short and easily committed to memory, so it would have quickly spread throughout the Christian community. However, this could just as easily have been written down, as it could have been memorized. There is simply no evidence either way.

Why do scholars date 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 so early after the Resurrection?

Before we consider the evidence for an early dating of 1 Corinthians 15, we should point out that even skeptical scholars date this passage incredibly early. Habermas writes, “Even radical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann think that ‘the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion… no later than three years after the death of Jesus.’”[4] In his book What Really Happened to Jesus, Lüdemann writes,

The testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is the earliest text in the New Testament to make concrete mention of the death, resurrection, and appearances of the risen Christ. Here Paul uses traditions which he knows from an earlier period. As 1 Corinthians is usually dated around 50 A.D., we may note, first, that the traditions which he mentions must be even older… It is hard to say what the relationship is between the event itself and the development and description of it. Because of the extraordinary nature of the event in question we may suppose that it was also reported immediately after the appearance of Jesus. How could it be conceivable that an event took place and was only related, shall we say, ten years later?[5]

Remember, Lüdemann is a radical, atheistic critic of the NT, and even he believes that this excerpt goes back to the early days of Christianity. Moreover, even skeptic Michael Goulder writes that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”[6] This being stated up front, let’s consider why even these critical scholars date this passage so early:

In Galatians, Paul writes, “Three years later, I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:18-19 NLT). If you read the context, Paul says that he went up to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Since Paul was converted roughly two years after Jesus was crucified, he must have gone to Jerusalem only five years after the resurrection occurred.

What was Paul doing in Jerusalem with Peter and James for those two full weeks? Was he seeing the sites in Jerusalem or visiting the Temple with friends? Not likely. He must have been drilling Peter and James with questions about the historical Jesus and his resurrection. Paul never saw Jesus’ earthly ministry the way that these men did. It makes sense that he would have asked a lot of questions about the historical Jesus in the short time that he was with them. In fact, Paul uses the Greek word historesai (Gal. 1:18) to describe the intent of this trip to Jerusalem. This word refers to investigative studies and historical research. Licona writes, “The term my mean ‘to get information from,’ or ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.”[7]

This must have been where Paul “received” details about the historical Jesus, whom he knew only through personal revelation –not historical research (Gal. 1:12; 1 Cor. 15:3). Paul received the message of the gospel directly from Jesus (Gal. 1:12), but he received additional historical details about the gospel from investigating the other witnesses (1 Cor. 15:3). Since we can date this event to five years after the resurrection, this dates this statement of faith before this time. We don’t know how early it was, but we do know that it couldn’t have been very late.


[1] Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. 224.

[2] Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. 224-225.

[3] Habermas writes, “In short, these creeds were communicated verbally years before they were written and hence they preserve some of the earliest reports concerning Jesus from about 30-50 A.D. Therefore, in a real sense, the creeds preserve pre-New Testament material, and are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.” Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Pub., 1996. 143.

[4] Gary Habermas, “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts.” From Craig, William Lane., and Chad V. Meister. God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009. 212.

[5] Lüdemann, Gerd, and Alf Özen. What Really Happened to Jesus: a Historical Approach to the Resurrection. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. 9; 15.

[6] Goulder, Michael. “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision” Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford. 1996. 48.

[7] Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. 230.

From: www.evidenceunseen.com...