Duvduv

1 Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection of Jesus and of the believers. There are also minor references in Romans, Timothy and Philippians. Some have argued that all of these are interpolations.

The idea of ressurrection by definition would require a physical body to be resurrected, although this could be understood otherwise by mythists. However, given how important the resurrection became for Christianity, it seems strange that the interpolators or the original writers did not emphasize it enough outside of 1 Corinthians. If it was the original writer who talked about it, it would seem it wasn't as significant an issue as one would expect, since the indwelling of the Christ doesn't ipso facto depend on resurrection at all except in a more Jewish-connected context.

That itself is interesting, because the entire traditional view about resurrection in Judaism itself is not directly derived from anything in the Torah but belongs in the realm of the Oral Law, the unwritten tradition, which thus would have been adopted by these Christians once they became familiar and accepted concepts from the Oral Law, which one would not really expect to find in sects who did not follow the rabbis.

Duvduv

Folks like "Tertullian" went to great extents to try to argue that resurrection had to involve their Christ's PHYSICAL resurrection in a body. It's a bit strange since one would think that this debate would have been put to rest thanks to the mention of the "hands and side" in Luke and John. On the other hand, the emphasis on this in apologetics MUST have meant that strong counter-arguments were being made for a "resurrection" that was not in a fleshly body. As I mentioned, mainstream Judaism advocates for a fleshly resurrection, but there must have been some of these "Christians" out there who believed in a resurrection that did not require a physical body.

aa5874

Well, you MUST have sources for your claim that, " there must have been some of these "Christians" out there who believed in a resurrection that did not require a physical body".

It is a bit strange that you have no evidence or sources of antiquity for what you claim MUST have happened.

Anyhow, there are sources of antiquity which show that there were Christians who did NOT believe the Jesus story and show that there were people called Christians, not because of a character called Jesus Christ, but simply because they BELIEVED they were "ANOINTED with the oil of God".

To Autolycus The word "Christian" is derived from the word meaning "anointed" not from a character called Christ.

Whether or not Jesus Christ did exist there would still be people called CHRISTIANS because they BELIEVE they were Anointed with oil of God.

Duvduv

You are correct. I should have used quotation marks.
But what does this have to do with a physical or non physical resurrection??

aa5874

Please, make yourself clear. What source of antiquity mentioned that Christians would not physically resurrect??

Duvduv

The reference in 1 Corinthians 15 aside, the text of apologetics attributed to Tertullian about Christ in the Flesh and the brief references in Romans etc. as I mentioned.

aa5874

Please, be specific. What source of antiquity mentioned that Christians would NOT physically resurrect?

The NT Canon, and the Church writings do NOT support the Heresy that Christians will NOT physically resurrect.

Duvduv

Well, the gnostics never talked about physical resurrection and if the original mystery believers did not believe in a physical Jesus then resurrection would be merely a spiritual event.

Doug Shaver

I don't think that means much. I doubt there is a passage anywhere in the New Testament that some have not argued is an interpolation.

Doug Shaver

Only if it was a physical body that died.