The New Testament development of the Resurrrection story

[polonius]

It has been argued that the New Testament is really largely legendary rather than historical.

Let's take one event the (Resurrection) and see what the we can determine about the history of that event from the writings themselves.

Opinions?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

We can determine that Jesus rose from the dead. That John and Matthew, being Apostles were eyewitnesses of the event and that Mark and Luke probably interviewed others that had seen the the event and recorded it in their gospels.


JW

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

There is no proof that a historical Jesus existed, much less had an earthly resurrection.

But there is plentiful proof that Paul and the Epistle authors believed in a preexistent heavenly "Son", Adam Kadmon, Logos, archangelic figure whom they called "Jesus Messiah".

As a fan of Christ Myth theory, I think that the original heavenly Jesus/Son was that heavenly figure - the Son of Man who presented himself to the Ancient of Days. The original "Gospel" - "good news" - was that this heavenly figure had undertaken a kenosis or emptying wherein he "incarnated" - moving from his place at God's side in the highest heavens, into the "form" of a man in the lower heavens, where he suffered, died and rose again back into the high heavens. No earthly Jesus of Nazareth was needed for this great adventure of the heavenly Son.

That is why Christianity's oldest scriptures - Paul's letters and the other Epistles - have no unambiguous reference to a historical Jesus.

If they did have such a historical figure in mind, they would have liberally peppered their texts with mentions of his miracles, baptism by John, his cures, his exorcisms, his conflicts with family-friends-and-disciples, his conflicts with scribes, Pharisees, and priests, his raisings up of dead people, his "I am" sayings, his sermon on the mount, his remarkable parables, his friends Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, his large family, his travels through Galilee, his teaching on the Law, etc., etc. But neither Paul nor the other Epistle authors cite a historical Jesus.

Because of that, it is obvious that the earliest New Testament idea about the Resurrection was not about the resuscitation of a corpse which had to exit a tomb with a rolled-away stone. It was about the other-wordly incarnation, Passion, death and resurrection of a purely non-historical, non-material, spiritual Christ.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

There is no proof that a historical Jesus existed, much less had an earthly resurrection.

But there is plentiful proof that Paul and the Epistle authors believed in a preexistent heavenly "Son", Adam Kadmon, Logos, archangelic figure whom they called "Jesus Messiah".

As a fan of Christ Myth theory, I think that the original heavenly Jesus/Son was that heavenly figure - the Son of Man who presented himself to the Ancient of Days. The original "Gospel" - "good news" - was that this heavenly figure had undertaken a kenosis or emptying wherein he "incarnated" - moving from his place at God's side in the highest heavens, into the "form" of a man in the lower heavens, where he suffered, died and rose again back into the high heavens. No earthly Jesus of Nazareth was needed for this great adventure of the heavenly Son.

That is why Christianity's oldest scriptures - Paul's letters and the other Epistles - have no unambiguous reference to a historical Jesus.

If they did have such a historical figure in mind, they would have liberally peppered their texts with mentions of his miracles, baptism by John, his cures, his exorcisms, his conflicts with family-friends-and-disciples, his conflicts with scribes, Pharisees, and priests, his raisings up of dead people, his "I am" sayings, his sermon on the mount, his remarkable parables, his friends Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, his large family, his travels through Galilee, his teaching on the Law, etc., etc. But neither Paul nor the other Epistle authors cite a historical Jesus.

Because of that, it is obvious that the earliest New Testament idea about the Resurrection was not about the resuscitation of a corpse which had to exit a tomb with a rolled-away stone. It was about the other-wordly incarnation, Passion, death and resurrection of a purely non-historical, non-material, spiritual Christ.

I think you're onto something here, except for the fact that all of the stories you articulated which admittedly were written down after Paul's letters, do predate Paul's letters as they developed in the church, especially prior to the schism which forced them from the synagogues.

This isn't to suggest that these stories are historical narratives dealing with the historical Jesus, but to show how is message continued to resonate in the developing church. In other words, it's the same message no matter who expresses it. It's a message as old as the first stories of Genesis with the discovery of self and the antidote in self denial. One must die to death to live for life. It's a continual dying to what does't work in favor of living for what does. There's this cycle of regeneration that runs along with a progression that leaves the past behind for a future that is brand new. There is this separation that points to, and can't exist without a reunification. It is about the spiritual entering into the physical to manifest eternal truths in a temporal world.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

There is no proof that a historical Jesus existed, much less had an earthly resurrection.

But there is plentiful proof that Paul and the Epistle authors believed in a preexistent heavenly "Son", Adam Kadmon, Logos, archangelic figure whom they called "Jesus Messiah".

As a fan of Christ Myth theory, I think that the original heavenly Jesus/Son was that heavenly figure - the Son of Man who presented himself to the Ancient of Days. The original "Gospel" - "good news" - was that this heavenly figure had undertaken a kenosis or emptying wherein he "incarnated" - moving from his place at God's side in the highest heavens, into the "form" of a man in the lower heavens, where he suffered, died and rose again back into the high heavens. No earthly Jesus of Nazareth was needed for this great adventure of the heavenly Son.

That is why Christianity's oldest scriptures - Paul's letters and the other Epistles - have no unambiguous reference to a historical Jesus.

If they did have such a historical figure in mind, they would have liberally peppered their texts with mentions of his miracles, baptism by John, his cures, his exorcisms, his conflicts with family-friends-and-disciples, his conflicts with scribes, Pharisees, and priests, his raisings up of dead people, his "I am" sayings, his sermon on the mount, his remarkable parables, his friends Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, his large family, his travels through Galilee, his teaching on the Law, etc., etc. But neither Paul nor the other Epistle authors cite a historical Jesus.

Because of that, it is obvious that the earliest New Testament idea about the Resurrection was not about the resuscitation of a corpse which had to exit a tomb with a rolled-away stone. It was about the other-wordly incarnation, Passion, death and resurrection of a purely non-historical, non-material, spiritual Christ.

I think you're onto something here, except for the fact that all of the stories you articulated which admittedly were written down after Paul's letters, do predate Paul's letters as they developed in the church, especially prior to the schism which forced them from the synagogues.

This isn't to suggest that these stories are historical narratives dealing with the historical Jesus, but to show how is message continued to resonate in the developing church. In other words, it's the same message no matter who expresses it. It's a message as old as the first stories of Genesis with the discovery of self and the antidote in self denial. One must die to death to live for life. It's a continual dying to what does't work in favor of living for what does. There's this cycle of regeneration that runs along with a progression that leaves the past behind for a future that is brand new. There is this separation that points to, and can't exist without a reunification. It is about the spiritual entering into the physical to manifest eternal truths in a temporal world.

You make very good points. Yes, the "story behind the story" is perhaps as old as humankind - a narrative of the soul's ascent, attainment of Gnosis or Enlightenment, Awakening, union/communion with the Spirit, the union of opposites/Yin-Yang, heaven having commerce with earth...the Perennial Philosophy... as you put it, " no matter who expresses it".

Thank you for your very insightful thoughts.