Essene Influence in Early Christianity

But the resurrection of the Christ deliberately does not fit into all these previous paradigms. The resurrection and later ascension of the Christ after three days in the tomb -- after descending to the lower regions to transform them by the power of Christ -- is obviously not the same.

The body was gone from the tomb and the gravecloths were left. Paul doesn't say much in his letters about the life and words and actions of Jesus. His letters assume that the congregations are already aware of the events of the life and death and resurrection. They obviously have other sources of knowledge than just Paul's letters to them.

A person can argue forever about what past writers thought about what happened to Enoch and Elijah and past figures without it affecting the resurrection and ascension of Christ. The resurrection of the Christ is a completely new and unique event, in relation to all the past paradigms, imo

To me, the Gospel writers were producing mythological and cultic literature. Stories of Jesus’ empty tomb and bodily disappearance were created for ritual and community formation. They were not engaged in historical reporting like a modern day news reporter. They also had to convince a Greco-Roman audience that a crucified Jewish peasant was worthy of devotion. That’s why the Gospel writers imitated and adapted the dominant literary patterns of their surrounding Greco-Roman culture. They had to speak the “language” of the people with a missing body, an empty tomb, and appearances after death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
That is the everlasting significance of the Resurrection.
You might think so, and we can all play with words, but that interpretation falls so far short of the actuality.

Paul identified the Resurrection: "that he arose again from the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:12), whereas your ethical acknowledgement denies the resurrection as an actual event.

By the same token anyone is 'resurrected' if their teaching continues after they die.

"Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again." (1 Corinthians 15:15)

"And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins" (15:17) – for 'sins' in thisn instance read 'ignorance'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
To me, the Gospel writers were producing mythological and cultic literature. Stories of Jesus’ empty tomb and bodily disappearance were created for ritual and community formation. They were not engaged in historical reporting like a modern day news reporter. They also had to convince a Greco-Roman audience that a crucified Jewish peasant was worthy of devotion. That’s why the Gospel writers imitated and adapted the dominant literary patterns of their surrounding Greco-Roman culture. They had to speak the “language” of the people with a missing body, an empty tomb, and appearances after death.
Ok. But it means you have decided from the outset to disregard the gospels as useful and to concentrate on Paul and writers before him. Fair enough, but it leaves no room for further discussion on the Christ of the New Testament, IMO
 
Ok. But it means you have decided from the outset to disregard the gospels as useful

In my opinion, you misunderstand how ancient literature works.

Why should I assume the Gospels are only useful if they function as literal historical reporting?
 
Why should I assume the Gospels are only useful if they function as literal historical reporting?
Of course they don't function only as literal historical reporting. The churches Paul addressed were (obviously) already there, and the essential elements of the gospels were already in currency as tracts and local conversation, including (obviously) the resurrection.

The resurrection is front and centre with Paul. As with the early Christian churches. But what did Paul actually mean, is the basis of the discussion here? Was it just a progression of the soul after death? Paul describes an encounter with the resurrected and ascended Christ.

Do you mean to disregard all the miracles in the gospels, along with the resurrection? Do you include the healings as miracles. Jesus was certainly a healer, and probably a worker of 'signs' as that was what drew crowds around him.

EDIT: Paul didn't invent the resurrection. It was obviously already in currency in the churches to which he sent his letters
 
Last edited:
Of course they don't function only as literal historical reporting.

Why assume they function as historical reporting at all?

No serious historian accepts the following actually happened as if it is literal historical reporting:

“The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matthew 27.52–53).

No contemporary makes any mention of an event where many long-dead individuals walked into Jerusalem and appeared to the public. Early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus took the account literally, however. I think they are extremely disconnected.

Modern critical scholars understand Matthew here is not literal journalism.

Which path you take in interpreting Matthew here will depend on how you view Matthew’s genre. Is it strictly a biography? If so, everything is a literal event (even if they have additional symbolic meanings layered on top). I disagree with such a conclusion, and I definitely disagree with tradition (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus).
 
Why assume they function as historical reporting at all?
Does this means you reject any historical value?

“The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matthew 27.52–53).
Exactly, to me it's obviously an addition for effect. Josephus has ghost riders in the sky in his historical accounts of Roman Judea. It was not uncommon as a technique. But it doesn't answer my post #165 centering on the miracle of the resurrection?

The churches Paul addressed were (obviously) already there, and the essential elements of the gospels were already in currency as tracts and local conversation, including (obviously) the resurrection.

The resurrection is front and centre with Paul. As with the early Christian churches. But what did Paul actually mean, is the basis of the discussion here? Was it just a progression of the soul after death? Paul describes an encounter with the resurrected and ascended Christ.

Do you mean to disregard all the miracles in the gospels, along with the resurrection? Do you include the healings as miracles. Jesus was certainly a healer, and probably a worker of 'signs' as that was what drew crowds around him.

Paul didn't invent the resurrection. It was obviously already in currency in the churches to which he sent his letters

The early churches (obviously) accepted Paul's encounter with the ascended Christ as genuine and the reason for his conversion. They didn't think it was some sort of schizophrenic hallucination. They accepted Paul as a teacher.

So did Paul and the early churches think of the resurrection as some sort of 'ghost' appearance by Christ after death?

Disregarding the empty tomb of the gospels then, and the resurrected Christ who ate with humans and invited Thomas to touch him -- this Pauline ghost was still capable of knocking him off his horse and blinding him -- all this while Jesus's body lay decaying somewhere in an unknown tomb?

Was this the probable understanding of those early churches?

EDIT: Again Paul did not invent the resurrection. It was already there (obviously) when he started visiting and writing to the early churches
 
Last edited:
I introduced horizontal and vertical translation because you said ...
Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. And the ones I mentioned were all 'ascensions', rather than one, dare I say anomalous, sideways movement.

Your adherence to the idea that for both Jews and Gentiles in the ancient world, the very idea of a resurrection leaving behind a mouldering corpse in a tomb would have been considered an anomaly is incorrect.
I disagree. Or rather, I see no reason to assume a remaining corpse. Bearing in mind resurrection is actually rare, it is itself anomalous.

But as Paul tells it, Jesus died, was placed in the tomb, and then rose from the dead, and was seen on multiple occasions as risen from the dead, not a ghostly apparition.

Paul develops his theology, but there is no discussion of the precise details. I cannot actually assert there was no body, you cannot assert there was.

I would assume then, that those seeing the Risen Lord or subsequently hearing Paul's testimony would assume that, as is commonly the case in scripture, myths and legends, the person was taken by God, body and soul, as it were ...

I would argue that in the original biblical context, Enoch was taken alive to a mythical location on earth (like the Garden of Eden or the ends of the earth) where he could continue to “walk with God.”
I disagree. All Genesis says is "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24).
1 Enoch extends the tale, but 1 Enoch was influential, but not canonical.

Paul simply didn't need Enoch to develop his theology.
 
Does this means you reject any historical value?

Of course not. Identifying Essene influences or early Jewish traditions is doing actual historical work in my opinion.

Exactly, to me it's obviously an addition for effect.

The passage is “an addition for effect?” Think about it. Matthew contains non-literal, embellished literary devices. How do you distinguish historical claims from literary effects then?

I do not understand why the empty tomb must be treated as a historical fact while the surrounding miracles in the same text (e.g., Matthew 27.52-53) are dismissed as an addition for effect.

The early churches (obviously)

But the early Church Fathers consistently understood and defended the passage (Matthew 27.52-53) as a literal historical event, not an addition for effect. Seeing it as a literary device is a modern view, not based on ancient patristic theology. Sorry, I know you are about to move on to Paul’s encounter, but I am fascinated by your acceptance of an “addition for effect” and how it relates to early Christianity.

Is not the empty tomb an addition for effect too?
 
I am fascinated by your acceptance of an “addition for effect” and how it relates to early Christianity.
It's one reason there are four gospels and all the other NT material to give a big picture, together with apocrypha and historical fragments. The life and death of Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan or Henry V is assembled from various accounts, which don't all agree.

Matthew's inclusion, for instance, of ghosts rising from tombs is not an uncommon literary technique for the time. Josephus used it in his historical accounts. Does that mean all Josephus's writings have to be discarded as historically irrelevant? I can look for examples of Josephus using this technique if you really need me to.

But the early Church Fathers consistently understood and defended the passage (Matthew 27.52-53) as a literal historical event, not an addition for effect. Seeing it as a literary device is a modern view, not based on ancient patristic theology.
The resurrection of Christ was in common circulation from the earliest times of the first Christians. Before the church fathers.

Of course the church fathers defended inerrant scripture. That was the way at the time. That was then. We are talking about now. With 21st Century information. Does the fact earlier church writers defended inerrant scripture mean the gospels should be disallowed from modern discussion?

All this is so repetitive and unnecessary, imo
 
Last edited:
But the early Church Fathers consistently understood and defended the passage (Matthew 27.52-53) as a literal historical event, not an addition for effect. Seeing it as a literary device is a modern view, not based on ancient patristic theology.
@Ahanu

For clarity: I am talking about the earliest churches addressed by Paul, who is the earliest Christian writer -- not the church fathers or later Christian voices. You are using Paul's voice to discern the mechanism of the resurrection in regard to Jesus Christ. I'm addressing that. We haven't even got as far as the gospels. And you would disregard them anyway in relation to the resurrection. So ...
 
It's one reason there are four gospels and all the other NT material to give a big picture, together with apocrypha and historical fragments.

I am not clear about your rule. Here is a possible understanding:

If there is any single-attestation items (like Matthew 27.52–53), they are “additions for effect.”

So did Jesus turn water into wine? Is it a historical fact or an addition for effect? It only appears in John. Please correct my understanding if I have not captured your rule well enough. Do you conclude all four gospels are separate testimonies?

I can look for examples of Josephus using this technique if you really need me to.

Yes, please.

The resurrection of Christ was in common circulation from the earliest times of the first Christians. Before the church fathers.

The resurrection of Christ might have meant a lot of things to a lot of ancient Jewish Christians.

There is no mention of the resurrection or empty tomb in the Didache, which shows a “lack of interest in essential tenets of Pauline Christianity.” It shows historical evidence that the earliest Jesus movement was centered on Torah righteousness, community ethics, and the Kingdom, not flesh and bones resurrection and an empty tomb. This document represents a historic community of early Jesus followers.

Do we have any direct writings from the earliest Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem community? No. As far as I am concerned, we cannot assume the flesh and bones empty tomb stories in the Gospels were present in the earliest Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem church. I am led to conclude the empty tomb is an addition for effect.

Paul mentions burial and resurrection, but he never mentions an empty tomb or a physical flesh and bones resurrection.
 
I am not clear about your rule. Here is a possible understanding:

If there is any single-attestation items (like Matthew 27.52–53), they are “additions for effect.”

So did Jesus turn water into wine? Is it a historical fact or an addition for effect? It only appears in John. Please correct my understanding if I have not captured your rule well enough. Do you conclude all four gospels are separate testimonies?
No rule. I'm asking if the 'poetic liberty' in Matthew's style of writing means that all gospel accounts of the resurrection should be disregarded? The empty tomb is in all the gospels, and the resurrection account in three of them.

Yes, please.
Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

The resurrection of Christ might have meant a lot of things to a lot of ancient Jewish Christians.
Are Paul's gentile Christians of no account in the earliest church, while the apostles Peter, James and John were still alive?

There is no mention of the resurrection or empty tomb in the Didache, which shows a “lack of interest in essential tenets of Pauline Christianity.” It shows historical evidence that the earliest Jesus movement was centered on Torah righteousness, community ethics, and the Kingdom, not flesh and bones resurrection and an empty tomb. This document represents a historic community of early Jesus followers.
As far as I know The Didache, like the Pauline epistles does not tell the story of the life and crucifixion and ministry of Jesus. Like Paul it is mostly about conduct and rituals and so on, in the early church. I could be wrong?

Do we have any direct writings from the earliest Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem community? No. As far as I am concerned, we cannot assume the flesh and bones empty tomb stories in the Gospels were present in the earliest Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem church.
With no writings it obviously cannot be assumed the stories were not present?

I am led to conclude the empty tomb is an addition for effect.
I think you started out with that 'conclusion' and others differ, lol

Paul mentions burial and resurrection, but he never mentions an empty tomb or a physical flesh and bones resurrection.
Again Paul didn't try to write a gospel. The epistles assume that the main events of the life and death and resurrection are already known to his audience.
 
Last edited:
You might think so, and we can all play with words, but that interpretation falls so far short of the actuality.

Paul identified the Resurrection: "that he arose again from the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:12), whereas your ethical acknowledgement denies the resurrection as an actual event.

By the same token anyone is 'resurrected' if their teaching continues after they die.

"Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again." (1 Corinthians 15:15)

"And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins" (15:17) – for 'sins' in thisn instance read 'ignorance'.
Note your quotes, the passages say Christ was Risen. Christ rose from the dead, the significance of that is, even without a body,we know and we acknowledge Christ does not die. Christ exists before the body and exists after the body.

The dead rise in acceptance of Christ.

Peter confirmed Jesus was Christ (An Annointed One, Annointed of the Holy Spirit), upon that knowledge, Jesus said the Church was to be built.

The Spirit is not flesh, John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life

It appears, when I read what Ahanu and you post back and forth, that many want the flesh to be more than nothing as a risen Jesus, and many see flesh as nothing, but still accept the risen Christ.

The quandary continues, what will break the debate? I think it has to break, as those that wait for a flesh Jesus, will not accept Gods subsequent Messengers.

No reply needed RJM and Thomas. I apologise to Ahanu for this distraction.

G_D bless all, Regards Tony
 
No rule. I'm asking if the 'poetic liberty' in Matthew's style of writing

In Matthew 27.52–53 (which features “many” empty tombs and long-dead saints walking into Jerusalem), you want me to believe the passage is “obviously an addition for effect,” but the empty tomb of Jesus is literal journalism. 🧐

You even say there is “no rule,” but then go on to describe what strongly appears to be a rule later.

means that all gospel accounts of the resurrection should be disregarded?

There is the resurrection event and the narrative expression. Here is where I think we both can agree: Paul's early testimony in 1 Corinthians 15 gives strong historical evidence that the original disciples had real, life-altering experiences of the risen Christ. We disagree in how to read the literary expression of these experiences.

Rejecting empty tomb narratives as literal journalism doesn't mean we disregard historical truth. Ancient writers used the literary motifs and poetic forms of their era to communicate spiritual realities. While those narrative forms change across ages and cultures, the underlying reality - the living reality of Christ and the law of love - remains unchanged. Seeing the gospel narratives as literal journalism mistakes the outer wrapping for the gift itself in my opinion.

The empty tomb is in all the gospels, and the resurrection account in three of them.

This is what appears to be a rule. The empty tomb appears in all four gospels, so you think it must trace back to the earliest disciples. If Matthew and Luke simply copied Mark’s empty tomb, then four gospels actually reduces to one primary source (Mark). Maybe John’s empty tomb is expanding upon a tradition that originated with Mark.

However, for me the simple fact remains: the earliest sources (Paul and the Didache) do not mention an empty tomb.

Are Paul's gentile Christians of no account in the earliest church, while the apostles Peter, James and John were still alive?

As far as I know The Didache, like the Pauline epistles does not tell the story of the life and crucifixion and ministry of Jesus. Like Paul it is mostly about conduct and rituals and so on, in the early church. I could be wrong?

Paul is not handing out narrative Gospels, which did not yet exist. He points his converts to the ethical instructions they had received at their founding mission (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4.1–2, 1 Corinthians 2.9). My point is the earliest churches relied on an ethical, liturgical, and probably some form of Jesus sayings manual produced by Jerusalem. Empty-tomb narratives did not play a role. They were later “additions for effect” decades later.

Perhaps Chapter 1 of the Didache contains the earliest layer of Jesus' ethical teachings (the source behind Matthew and Luke). Furthermore, it is likely Paul points to the Didache himself: In 1 Corinthians 2.9, Paul writes: “As it is written: ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.’” The 1056 CE Bryennios manuscript of the Didache (discovered in 1873) lacks this specific line at its conclusion, but other ancient textual witnesses preserve variant layers of the Didache tradition that include Paul’s line.

I would argue that, if the empty tomb was a historical tradition handed down by the Jerusalem pillars (Peter, James, and John), it would be prominent in these first-generation texts, such as Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15 creed or the Didache, rather than completely absent.

With no writings it obviously cannot be assumed the stories were not present?

Well, in Galatians 1–2, Paul confirms he met directly with James and Peter in Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 15.3–11, Paul cites the foundational creed he received from these Aramaic-speaking followers. If the Jerusalem pillars insisted on an empty tomb as essential to their testimony, it would be reflected in the creed Paul inherited from them . . . yet Paul’s creed contains zero mention of an empty tomb

Again Paul didn't try to write a gospel. The epistles assume that the main events of the life and death and resurrection are already known to his audience.

Paul was trying to answer a major crisis in Corinth where believers were asking: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (1 Cor 15.35). If there was ever a moment in Paul's letters where mentioning the empty tomb was really necessary, this was it. If an empty tomb was part of what he received from the Jerusalem pillars, Paul would have cited it in some way as proof. I imagine he would have said: “You fools! Did you forget what happened in Jerusalem? We checked the tomb! The stone was rolled away, the grave clothes were lying there, and the physical body was gone! The missing corpse is the very proof of the resurrection!”

Note that when Paul needs to ground an argument in narrative facts, he cites them - like detailing the Last Supper (1 Cor 11) or listing the eyewitness appearances (1 Cor 15).
 
@Ahanu

Neither Paul not the Didache are narrative stories about the life of Jesus. They both assume their readers already know the story of Jesus life and death and resurrection. The fact that neither mention the empty tomb means nothing.

Matthew's literary style of writing includes 'poetic liberty' that was not uncommon and was used by Josephus and also Callisthenes the biographer of Alexander the Great, and by Herodotus and other historical writers.

I'm sorry, no disrespect, but as I said earlier I believe you have started your 'investigation' with your conclusion already formed and will stick to that whatever happens. I think it will just be repetition from now on, and withdraw from this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Note your quotes, the passages say Christ was Risen. Christ rose from the dead, the significance of that is, even without a body,we know and we acknowledge Christ does not die. Christ exists before the body and exists after the body.

The dead rise in acceptance of Christ.

Peter confirmed Jesus was Christ (An Annointed One, Annointed of the Holy Spirit), upon that knowledge, Jesus said the Church was to be built.

The Spirit is not flesh, John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life

It appears, when I read what Ahanu and you post back and forth, that many want the flesh to be more than nothing as a risen Jesus, and many see flesh as nothing, but still accept the risen Christ.

The quandary continues, what will break the debate? I think it has to break, as those that wait for a flesh Jesus, will not accept Gods subsequent Messengers.

No reply needed RJM and Thomas. I apologise to Ahanu for this distraction.

G_D bless all, Regards Tony
Best wishes @Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
Note your quotes, the passages say Christ was Risen. Christ rose from the dead, the significance of that is, even without a body,we know and we acknowledge Christ does not die. Christ exists before the body and exists after the body.
Yes. The Resurrection is of particular significance, the Son need not have manifested in the Incarnation – but then that begs the question of why He did – what mission was He fulfilling that necessitated it?

Miss the significance of Incarnation and Resurrection, and that goes on to misunderstand Creation.

That Christ exists bodily, that His flesh is united to His spirit, and risen in it, is what the New Testament is all about. Without that, there's no point in dwelling on it at all.

Thus theosis as the ordained end of all creation in an ontological union with the Divine – the thing promised by Jesus – is, like the resurrection, rationalised away in your doctrines.

Sorry, but that's the way it is ... you can rationalise all you like, but you're simply explaining the revelation, and the promise, away.

No need to reply.
 
The Spirit is not flesh, John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life

It appears, when I read what Ahanu and you post back and forth, that many want the flesh to be more than nothing as a risen Jesus, and many see flesh as nothing, but still accept the risen Christ.
That Christ exists bodily, that His flesh is united to His spirit, and risen in it, is what the New Testament is all about. Without that, there's no point in dwelling on it at all.
Jesus was born without sin and offered his flesh as the Lamb of God to end all blood sacrifice and replaced it in Eucharist with bread and wine.

The flesh of Christ was not sinful. Christ was master of the flesh, yet still offered himself to die on the cross. Jesus Christ was the perfect man and the new Adam, born without original sin. Again: Christ transcends all previous paradigms. There's nothing to compare

Nobody has to believe it, but it is the general Christian understanding
IMO
 
Last edited:
Back
Top