Evidence for God from Science

Hey everyone, I need some help trying to refresh my memory about a very good argument in support of the resurrection of Christ at least from a historical perspective. A long time ago when I was studying about evidences for Christ's resurrection, I remember either hearing or reading about a response to the objections that Christ's resurrection was a myth or that the earliest historical accounts for the resurrection were like fifty or a hundred years after the events and thus have plenty of room for a legend to develop.

And from what I can remember the response had to do with a trip that the apostle Paul made and there was some sort of historical event that corresponded with that meeting but anyway, whether it was it made a good argument that the first documented mentions of Christ's resurrection at least in printed form were written within ten years of the resurrection event. Which would mean that in ten years time no legend would have time to fully develop, and thus show that Christ's resurrection was not a product of a myth and that there is very early documentation of the resurrection.

Now if anyone reading this knows fully what I"m talking about and would like to help give me some more of the details I would greatly appreciate it. I was hoping to do more research into this and hopefully memorize it and add it to the list I have of resurrection arguments and evidences. But anyways, thank you all for your time, God bless.

Gary Habermas is THE guy to go to on this and he has a few books.
I think youare referring to the creed that Paul mentions in 1Cortinthians, a creed that was given to him after his conversion, which would mean that there was a creed already circulating amongst Christians about the resurrection, just a few years after Jesus death and resurrection and this is crucial because people would stll be alive to confirm or refute it.

DRDS wrote:Hey everyone, I need some help trying to refresh my memory about a very good argument in support of the resurrection of Christ at least from a historical perspective. A long time ago when I was studying about evidences for Christ's resurrection, I remember either hearing or reading about a response to the objections that Christ's resurrection was a myth or that the earliest historical accounts for the resurrection were like fifty or a hundred years after the events and thus have plenty of room for a legend to develop.

And from what I can remember the response had to do with a trip that the apostle Paul made and there was some sort of historical event that corresponded with that meeting but anyway, whether it was it made a good argument that the first documented mentions of Christ's resurrection at least in printed form were written within ten years of the resurrection event. Which would mean that in ten years time no legend would have time to fully develop, and thus show that Christ's resurrection was not a product of a myth and that there is very early documentation of the resurrection.

Now if anyone reading this knows fully what I"m talking about and would like to help give me some more of the details I would greatly appreciate it. I was hoping to do more research into this and hopefully memorize it and add it to the list I have of resurrection arguments and evidences. But anyways, thank you all for your time, God bless.

The creed in 1 Corinthians is what you are looking for.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This creed is considered pre-Pauline and is recognized as such by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. How do they know that it is old and pre-Pauline?

1. Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. So, Paul is saying that this material was not his own, but received from another source.

2. A number of the words are non-Pauline which indicates another source. They are: "for our sins," "according to the scriptures," "he has been raised," the "third day," "he was seen," and "the twelve."

3. The creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby indicating an oral and confessional nature.

4. There are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter, which would point to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.

5. Other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with the two references to the Scripture being fulfilled.

Some date this creed from 3 to 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion. This is Blomberg's logic for dating the creed:

"Now think, if the crucifixion was as early as 30 AD, Paul's conversation was bout 32 AD. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem would have been about 35 AD. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed, which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church."

Now, here with this creed we have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected formall dating back to within two or five years of the events themselves!! That's not later mythology from 40 or more years down the road. A good case can be made for saying that Christian belief in the Resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event!

It is also important to realize that this creed represents eyewitness testimony and to keep in mind that it is pre-Pauline.

Don't forget also that it was the women who saw the empty tomb first.
If a Jew of that time were developing a myth or lying about the empty tomb, why the heck would they say the women discovered it first? Remember the testimony of women back then was considered worthless, so this with the early pauline creed is a powerful testimony to the risen Christ.

If you or I were a Jew if that time and wanted to create a myth of the resurrection we would have said that men discovered the tomb first, not women.