Did Early Christians Really Believe that Jesus Rose from the Dead?

I wanted to share some apologetic material here and not just critique atheists, as much fun as that is. I want to start with something that I read in The Historical Jesus (1996) by Gary Habermas several years ago. This is one of my favorite arguments. In part two entitled Historical Data for the Life of Jesus, Habermas is setting to describe the nature of Christian thought before the writing of the New Testament. There are many pre-N.T. creeds that have been written down in the New Testament regarding many early Christian beliefs. The one I want to focus on is the creed regarding the resurrection.

Many skeptics argue that the resurrection is a later addition to the faith that the early Christians did not believe. Fortunately, we have evidence to the contrary. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Paul states: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." (RSV)

Paul says that he received what he is about to pass on to the Corinthians. The wording Paul uses is different from what Paul normally uses in his other writings suggesting another origin for this creed. Most scholars agree that the date in which Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians was approx. 55 A.D. This means that within the first 25 years Christians knew about and believed that Jesus rose from the dead. This was not a later addition by the church as some have claimed. Furthermore, since Paul has said that this is something he himself had received, we can safely place the origin of the creed itself even closer to the actual year of the resurrection. 

I believe this creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 easily should lay to rest any notions of Christians of a later generation fabricated Jesus' resurrection. 

Or So the Story Goes

I have been reading N.T. Wright's book entitled The New Testament and the People of God. He is addressing the whole notion of how do we approach the New Testament. He asks questions like, "How is the history of early Christianity to be 'relevant' for the present day?", "Why should anyone outside the Jewish or Christian traditions find any relevance in the retelling of a chapter in the history of those traditions?", and "What does it mean for the N.T. to be 'authoritative' for modern day Christians?" His preliminary answer is original and very useful.

His suggestion is "Since stories are a key worldview indicator and a good part of the New Testament consists of stories, of narratives, it might be a good idea to consider how stories might carry, or be vehicles for, authority." (140)  He continues by laying out a scenario where a play by Shakespeare is found that only has four acts and most of the fifth act is missing. Giving the play to experienced Shakespearian actors who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves. 

Wright continues, "Consider the result. The first four acts would be the undoubted 'authority' for the task at hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that some sub-plot or theme...had not reached its proper resolution. This 'authority' of the first four "acts" would not consist-could not consist!-in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier parts of the play over and over again. It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, containing its own impetus and forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in an appropriate manner. It would require of the actors free and responsible entering in to the story as it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be drawn together and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and acting with both innovation and consistency. This model could and perhaps should be adapted further: it offers quite a range of possibilities."

He then continues on to flesh out more possibilities, including the idea that we are in the story of God right now. We are the fifth act that is to continue on retelling the story of Jesus and to some extent Paul, just as they retold the story of God working through Israel, and Israel retold the story of how God created everything and how we fell from grace. This retelling of the story of God rings true with God's injunction throughout the O.T. to his people to never forget what He did for them and through them. 

He finishes this section up with this thought: "We are looking, as the material is looking, for and at a vocation to be the people of God in the fifth act of the drama of creation. The church inherits, at the end of the story, the task of restoring to the owner the fruits of the vineyard (he uses the parable of the wicked tenants from Mark 12:1-11 earlier in the book and asks the question, "What might we do with a text like this?"). If Act 3 (the story of Jesus) is essentially tragic, the total play is to be the kind of comedy that triumphs over tragedy."

Back to Blogging

Yes, it has been a little over six months since I posted something. At first I could blame the holidays, but now that it's June, not so much. Basically, I didn't think I had a readership so I wasn't as motivated to write. These past few posts have taken a long time to create and I didn't want to spend another three to four hours reading/thinking about my next topic. But I endeavor to be thorough! 

I want to take a break from critiquing the "New Atheists" for awhile. They have become quite tiresome in their rants and raves that I just can't take them seriously. William Lane Craig recently debated Christopher Hitchens and it was not even close. Hitchens was incoherent and couldn't form an actual argument to save his life. His points could be boiled down to "I don't like x." and "I can't understand how God could do/say x." What he likes or doesn't like or even what he can't understand is not an argument. I can't see how anyone can be persuaded by his notion that God is like a North Korean dictator because He knows all and sees all. Where is the link? He never clearly states how God must be this way. 

So, on to the next topic. I have a few in mind, but will have to figure out which one I want to address first.