Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15

[Naiant]

Legends, including those of miracles, can arise even during the lifetime of the person about whom they are told, even if that person denies them. See Sabbatai Zevi, for instance. The belief that it takes time for legends to develop is contrary to fact.

[testimonychanneltv]

@Naiant Good point. For eg the legend of my being healed of asthma in Jesus name evolved quickly; saturday I had asthma 42 years and on Sunday in church suddenly no asthma at all and haven't had for the last 4 years. Oh hang on a minute, the doctor also said I no longer have asthma, and the specialist and the other hospital doctor. Maybe then this is one of those occasions like using the name of the risen Lord Jesus to cast out demons that is actually real; like his ressurection

[Just4YML]

You have done an excellent job here.

What video creation and animating software do you use?

[LogosApologia]

@Just4YML Thanks! I use Sony Vegas.

[chabby316]

this points to one thing... JESUS IS OUR REAL SAVIOR!

[theocratickingdom30]

Anyone who tries to argue the apostles formed this from other religions is just revealing immense ignorance. Being strict jews they despised syncretism. Especially 2nd temple Judaism.

[EastofForever]

@theocratickingdom30 great post.

zeitgeist is pure utter b.s.

[tallliza]

@EastofForever There is as much evidence for a resurrection as Pinocchio.

[GoodyBob]

@tallliza Then hello Pinocchio...watch yer nose!

[tallliza]

There is no outside, independant, evidence for the resurrection NONE. To the contrary.

[6MemoryOfForever9]

huuuuuh, people come up with all sorts of crap, just to escape admitting they are wrong... what next, "Aliens changed the New Testament so it is a conspiracy?" grow up people, there is probably proof that Jesus existed (and was believed to have resurrected) more than there is proof that you exist! oh but when a stupid book like the Gospel of Judas says something AGAINST Christianity, suddenly the whole world believes it? good video, nice job!

[StormTrek]

Wow, great video. You did an excellent job putting it together.

[Bearkiller777]

Great Video Brother! Keep up the Great Work Bro don't let others on here try to discount the truth, for the Bible says those who are perishing are going to listen to their own lie than the truth and would have scratching ears and such, God Bless Bro :)

[ScottJanssen]

Have you realized that the cycles of the sun fit the Jesus story remarkably well? From our perspective, the sun travels to its most southern point, around Dec. 22nd/23rd, and stops. Then it begins its travel toward the north. This is the winter solstice. The sun dies and resurrects 3 days later. When the sun hits the vernal equinox, this is called Easter, which is in the zodiac of pisces (the fish, a common christian symbol). This is also the time to start the agricultural season.

Cont.

[ScottJanssen]

@ScottJanssen Harvest time in the northern hemisphere is roughly late August through September. This is in the zodiac of virgo (the virgin). This was considered by the ancient Egyptians to be the birth of the sun. All this is based on knowledge needed for agriculture. Why it hit mythological status is another subject and debatable, so we will just stick with what we do know.

[ScottJanssen]

@ScottJanssen I forgot to mention a couple of things. When the sun begins its journey towards the north, this begins on Dec. 24th or Dec. 25th depending on the year. This should be a very familiar date to you. People have been celebrating the end of the winter solstice long before Christianity. Sun worship started in Egypt. There is the sun and the 12 signs of the zodiac. There is Jesus and the 12 disciples. Coincidence?

"I am the light of the world." Yep, the sun sure is.

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen He was at the feast of tabernacles in Jerusalem when he said "I am the light of world" - they light a huge light - he was contrasting himself with Judaism.

[ScottJanssen]

@LogosApologia What you don't realize, and what I am trying to point out, is that there are many stories in the NT that exhibit quite a comparison to Egyptian sun worship and philosophies of their time. Constantine, around 330 AD, edited the NT heavily to remove most of the obvious connections to Egypt and sun worship.

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen That is demonstrably false because we have manuscripts dated from BEFORE Constantine's time for the NT books. This stuff has been totally refuted and no serious scholar takes it seriously.

[ScottJanssen]

@LogosApologia Now you are just making stuff up. Most manuscripts that date back before 300 CE are in fragments, and most were found in Egypt, which is not surprising. The more intact manuscripts date from around 300 CE onward. Constantine's influence on Christianity is not in question among scholars. One thing he did is that he made Dec. 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the birthday of Jesus. He is what helped Christianity grow exponentially.

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen But the fragments do not support your fringe scholarship. There's no a shred of evidence that Constantine changed the NT. We can assemble almost the entire New Testament just from the quotations made by the Church fathers like Clement, Irenaeus, etc. Sure Constantine declared Dec 25th but so what? That has nothing to do with the bible.

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen The Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV range from 180-225 AD and contain all within two generations of the Apostles, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews and major sections of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and Revelation. So much for your conspiracy theory...

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen No one actually believes Jesus was born Dec 25th so this is irrelevant.

[ScottJanssen]

There was a time when it was very dangerous to be an atheist (still is in some countries).

[LogosApologia]

@ScottJanssen As long as you are still alive you have an opportunity to repent and get down on you knees and beg God for forgiveness. Thus the most dangerous time to still be an atheist is the moment you die and face the Lord. It's not a threat as I have no power, its a warning that one day regardless of what you believe you will face the one with all power.

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia The gospel of Mark is the earliest and nearest account about Jesus among the other gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul in the Ne Testament.

How can Paul be among the 12 apostles or disciples of Jesus when the historical fact is that Saul or Paul never saw nor met with Jesus in person?

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas Paul met Jesus after the resurrection and was made an apostle by him to reach the gentiles. He then wrote most of the New testament and is still considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time, even by someone like Atony Flew..

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia The gospel of Mark is the earliest and nearest account about Jesus among the other gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul in the Ne Testament.

How can Paul be among the 12 apostles or disciples of Jesus when the historical fact is that Saul or Paul never saw nor met with Jesus in person?

[LogosApologia]

@LogosApologia In addition Paul clearly believed and taught a historical real human Jesus. Gal. 4:4 he writes of his birth, Rom 1:3 "according to the FLESH" 2 Cor. 5:16 "know Christ after the flesh" Rom. 9:5 "according to the flesh" it goes on and on... skeptical claims that Paul didn't believe in a real person Jesus are just logically incoherent. Paul met and spoke to Jesus in person after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:8, Gal 1:11-12)

[cdputnam]

@cherifa123 Hmmm so you believe in miracles but consider the Bible only a legend?

[LogosApologia]

@cherifa123 Actually its not "says me" and that is the qualitative difference between us. I am deferring to Gods word and you are actually the one going with yourself.

[EternalSkeptic77]

'Creed' or not-it's still one witness saying there were 500 witnesses-

not 500 witnesses. And Paul never claims to have know an earthly 'jesus'.

Nothing you have said or referenced proves this 'creed' couldn't have been quickly formulated by distraught and disappointed believers who expected 'jesus' to deliver them from the romans and simply refused to believe he had died so ignominiously.

Nor does it preclude Paul having heard and assimilated this 'creed' at a much later date.

[LogosApologia]

@EternalSkeptic77 What you are purposing is simply incoherent with the evidence. The purpose of this letter to the Corinthians was to encourage and rebuke an early church that was worldly and falling into error. Paul is challenging them to return to what they first believed, he is offering the fact that "most of whom are still alive" as a way for those who doubt to check it out for themselves. In this context, the *LAST* thing Paul would do would be to offer up bogus information.

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia

I think you mean 'incongruent' not 'incoherent'.

Nothing in your reply refutes anything I said.

In addition, that Paul mentions 'those who are still alive' does not mean much given the difficulties and dangers of travel at that time. Likely none who heard him would have had the means or even the inclination to doubt or verify his words.

In my objections, Paul would not have even known the 'creed' he was offering was 'bogus'.

[LogosApologia]

@EternalSkeptic77 I meant incoherent as in epistemological theory - a theory about how belief can be justified. Wiki has a nice article on it as "coherentism".

Your contentions are incoherent with the well known context.

Paul knew the other disciples who were also first hand eyewitnesses and records meeting with them. Your contentions reflect that you don't know the context of Paul's letter. Paul knew the creed was true because he saw the risen Jesus as well. see 1 cor 15:8

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia

Then your comment makes even less sense.

'Coherentism' implies consistency within a set of beliefs. Ours differ.

My objections are not part of your belief system/claims-they are in opposition to them. I think the crux is merely that you find them 'incoherent' because they don't agree with your beliefs.

Whatever.

cont

[LogosApologia]

@EternalSkeptic77 No your contentions are not coherent with the context of Paul's letter. I say its incohrent because what you say just doesn't make sense. Paul's letter is to a church that is struggling with sin and unbelief. Your idea that he would just make up that many of the witnesses were still alive in this context just doesn't seem likely. And you have no evidence to support your claims.

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia

I'm no longer interested in arguing semantics.

Your comment makes no sense to me using either definition.

Sorry-a group of believers such a short time after the pruported r3esurr3ection

would not be 'struggling with sin and unbelief'-

they would rather be newly acquainting themselves with and/or choosing what to believe.

cont

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia cont

I did not even once suggest that Paul made anything up.

I don't like to repeat myself but you seem to be having trouble grasping my objections.

"....In my objections Paul would not have even known the 'creed' he was offering was 'bogus'. "

And I'm very sorry-

what you present here isn't evidence-it is mere assertion and wishful speculation.

[LogosApologia]

@EternalSkeptic77 You still have a coherence problem. Paul himself said he saw the resurrected Jesus so he knew first hand that the creed was true. It is incoherent to claim he was deceived or ignorant and didn't know the creed was false. If you want to contend that - you have to claim Paul was also lying.

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia cont

Your logic holds up no better than that of C. S. Lewis with his 'trilema' argument.

You leave out the possibility that Paul was on occasion capable of what can only be charitably referred to as 'schizophrenia' and would have seen the 'creed' as obviously true without seeing any need to fact check, since it reinforced his experience.

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia stated "Paul himself said he saw the resurrected Jesus," as in 1 Corinthians 8 "he appeared also to me." Notice what Paul meant by the word "resurrected" in Ibid 44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." Besides, the historical fact is that Saul or Paul never saw nor met with Jesus in person.

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas Yes, thanks what was "sown" is then "raised". This is good evidence for literal bodily resurrection. Like creed -died- buried- raised- its the same body! Paul wrote that the spiritual body is the same physical body transformed. "who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. " (Phil. 3:21)

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia quoted Phil.3:21 to equate "his glorious body" with "a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 that is indeed "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" in Luke 24:39. So, there is nothing glorious about having a spiritual body or a spirit/ghost without flesh and bones.

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia

In fact, Mark 16:9-20 about Jesus' Resurrection was UNAVAILABLE in the ancient Greek scriptures as confirmed by 32 Christian Bible scholars of the RSV, BUT the passage was surprisingly AVAILABLE in the KJV!!!

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas Old news... The KJV translators were using a different manuscript with the additional account. They simply used what was available to them at the time in 1611. This has nothing to do with the creed in 1 Cor. 15 so its just a red herring.

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia incorrectly stated "This has nothing to do with the creed in 1 Cor. 15," coz Jesus appeared to eye-witnesses with Paul included in 1 Cor 15:8 after the crucifixion pertains to Jesus' Resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 that was UNAVAILBLE in the ancient Greek scriptures as confirmed by 32 Christian Bible scholars of the RSV. Paul later had the Resurrection story that Mark never had it before Paul.

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas What I disputed was that the KJV had any bearing on 1 Cor 15. The resurrection is absolutely in Mark's gospel when Jesus foretold it.i 10:33–34

"saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise."



[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia quoted Jesus' prophesy that foretold his Resurrection in Mark 10:33-34 "... And after three days he will rise." which evidently failed to materialize in the ancient Greek scriptures, coz Mark 16:9-20 that Jesus' Resurrection happened was UNAVAILABLE there as confirmed by the 32 Christian scholars of the RSV, BUT the Resurrection prophesy as foretold in Mark 10:33-34 ironically happened in the KJV!!!.

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas please do some research you are just embarrassing yourself. KJV is based on an ancient greek text called textus receptus that has the section in question. Today we have found older manuscripts which do not have it. Nearly all modern translations like NIV ESV, NASB have a footnote indicating this, it has been there for like 20 years, this is old news and has absolutely no bearing on this video. basically....a big "so what?"

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia asked "so what?" is that the RSV denies Jesus' Resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 BUT the KJV accepts Jesus' Resurrection in Mark 16:9-20. One of them is correct BUT both cannot be correct. In addition, the weight of evidence favors the RSV to be correct, coz CONT>

[LogosApologia]

@saidinmas You are really disingenuous as the RSV does not deny anything. You really don't get it -- it's a Greek manuscript issue and has zero to do with the KJV and RSV which are simply translations of ancient Greek sources. It simply ends with the empty tomb which implies the resurrection. This creed was BEFORE Mark so the resurrection was already established. Pleae move on as you have proven to be just a troll that does not care to learn the truth.

[saidinmas]

@LogosApologia CONT> coz in Luke 24:36-41 Jesus was a physical body instead of a spirit or spiritual body with no flesh and bones, where at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges to save him from death. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25) who was already crucified since the third hour. No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection.

[EternalSkeptic77]

@LogosApologia cont

Even if Paul knew the 'other' disciples, (does one qualify as a 'disciple' if he never met the earthly 'jesus' ?) what he is offering is still third hand hear say and the fact that it is in 'sing song' factoid form is a detractor not a virtue.

Paul saw a 'vision' of 'jesus if I am not mistaken-he did not see a flesh and blood 'risen' jesus.

Why wouldn't the christians he knew reinforced his conversion with 'eye witness' testimony. What would you expect of cult leaders ?

[shann0rla]

Brilliant! Thank you.

[aerycksmusic]

Excellent!

[NephilimFree]

The problem with this is that Paul did not write Corinthians. THe Holy Ghost did. All scripture is given by the Holy Gost to man, so Paul did not organize these lines, they were given to Him, It is God who did it, not Paul.

[AlanCFA]

@NephilimFree - so God also wrote Exodus 21:20-21, right? 20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So you can beat your slave, er, I mean "servant" to death and it is ok as long as the "servant" takes a day or two to die since you are out the money and that is punishment enough. THAT was written by the Holy Ghost?

[lotanddaughters]

@NephilimFree

The Holy Ghost wrote Corinthians?

I'm gonna slap your fucking MOUTH.

[SAUNDERSacts2618]

Amen!

[LogosApologia]

@cherifa123 Believing the Gospel is what saves you and the gospel is centered on Jesus resurrection. Take a look at James 2:19, believing in God is not enough.

[patrickmcintyre]

Excellent Work!

One of the great things about Bible accounts (unlike the Koran), is they never try to prove anything. The writers relate what they know to be true in a matter-of-fact way. The obvious tensions between factions like James and the Jerusalem church versus Paul on keeping Jewish traditions reveal not a conspiracy of thought, but rather an organic development. The Message was not controlled by a few, but rather, shared by many.

[LogosApologia]

@patrickmcintyre Jesus resurrection is one of the surest events in ancient history, there is simply no coherent accounting for the existence of the early church and Sunday worship apart from it. While we can never strictly prove history - we can demonstrate what most plausibly happened.

[evangelical1]

Good stuff! I noticed that your videos are so much more exciting than mine. Who's your writer?

[LogosApologia]

@evangelical1 It's a one man show. I research, write it and then narrate and then do the video. Of course this challenge idea leans heavily on Licona and Habermas' book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

[JAMRAND]

Another favorite. God Bless

[BRtanaka]

Nice Video God Bless you

[TELDANNY]

Good.

[Susanna129]

Very good and explanatory video..Yes it was dangerous to be Christian in those early years...True...Even now Christian are often killed for the fact that are believers in Christ.

[zztwp]

Why do you talk about the Greek and latan ? All of the men that Jesus picked were Jewish and the book's were writen in Hebrew to start with ? If you will resurch this you will find the truth !

[95TurboSol]

Very good!

[sincitypreacher]

5***** Brother, thank you for using your considerable talents for apologetics. I awill also add this to my playlist RESURRECTION.

[greenmagoos]

Signs in the Sky - The Day of the Cross

watch?v=rmygjSM6Snk

[brainouty]

Well said. I put this in my Favorites. Forensically, movements can't rise like this one did, if not based on something spectacular. All religions had to compete with the 'Christian', from this time forward.

Personally, I don't get how one can refute His Resurrection. One must say 'I wasn't there, so I don't know'. To get proof, you'd ask God. All God need do is show JURIDICAL NECESSITY of the Cross, and the prophecy of His Resurrection (as in Isa53).

Then you know for sure.

[LogosApologia]

@brainouty Thanks, I made this one to put to rest the canard that there was nothing written contemporaneously concerning the resurrection. Its common for misinformed skeptics here on youtube to say that we don't, yet right here in Paul's letter written in 55 we have testimony dating back to the time of Jesus actual resurrection appearences. I was astonished that even the Jesus Seminar dates it within 2 years!