They do it different, but at least for the Mormans who really believe in the theology it's hard for me to separate them from Christianity because of the belief that Christ was risen from the dead and he conquers death and sin — Moliere

Fair enough.

And I hesitate to correct a former Mormon, but I think it is spelled Mormon, not Morman. In any case, your break is now complete. :razz:

lol you're right. My accent coming through in the writing.

Whether or not Christ was raised from the dead (physically, hence the purported visual apparition allegedly witnessed by followers) seems to me like an incredibly minor detail based on the underlying context of Abrahamic faith (which again different followers hold different beliefs as far as what the purported Messiah is, signifies, and functionally "does") If I'm not mistaken, Jewish prophecy states the Messiah would be a military leader who would ensure them a victory against their enemies. — Outlander

Sure, and who are the enemies, according to the Christians? Sin and death (and the powers connected to them). Without the resurrection Christ is not a victor. Christians retain much more of the militaristic approach than is commonly thought. It's just that the enemy is not human.

Did you read the OP? — Leontiskos

I did. Did you? Did you miss the two questions raised?

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

These questions are not limited to the teachings of Paul on resurrection.

you display your ignorance in this area constantly — Leontiskos

Please point out the mistakes in my response to the OP.

One does not need formal theological training to know that Christianity has never been monolithic. This is a matter of historical fact, not theology. The Church Fathers would not have needed to establish a "universal" Church with official doctrines if if was. They would not have had to destroy what they regarded as heretical teaching or felt it necessary to attempt to discredit and silence those "heretical" teachers.

Did your formal theological training include the different beliefs in resurrection? What is Paul referring to when he says Jesus rose in accordance with scripture? We find in Judaism both the idea of bodily resurrection, spiritual resurrection, and even resurrection in different bodies.

The question of resurrection for Paul is complicated by Paul's "vision". To see someone in a vision is not to see him in person. His claim that:

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[a] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

(1 Corinthians, 13)

is one use of the term body that is problematic.

In 1 Corinthian Paul distinguishes between the natural body and the spiritual body:

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

(15:42-44)

The life of the spiritual body, sōma pneumatikos, comes with the death of the physical body. Whatever Paul meant by resurrection it is not necessarily the same as what others might take it to mean.

There is no mention of resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. Since many of the early gospels were lost or destroyed we cannot say with certainty that he was alone. John's criticism of Thomas suggests that Thomas' teaching were widely known and accepted.

Elaine Pagels points out that the Gnostic Gospels contain different interpretations of Jesus rising including the idea that the resurrection was not a physical event but a symbol of how Christ's spirit could be felt in the present.

None of this is about what the truth of the resurrection might be but rather about different beliefs about what it was. If, as some believe it was symbolic rather than an historical event, then it is clear that actually physically arising from the dead is not a necessary belief held by all Christians.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text?

I initially picked up a Bible with very low expectations. At times it was certainly a brutal retelling of history and certain rules surely reflected earlier times, but I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth.

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text? — BitconnectCarlos

That's exactly the quesion you would need to ask them. When Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians tell us their scriptures are divinely inspired, what do they mean? Which religion is correct about this claim and how do we demonstrate it? We can guess the range of answers possible.

I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth. — BitconnectCarlos

I see no real problem with this. We find this amongst followers of most religions. I guess where it matters is if violent interference with others is the product of revealed wisdom.

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance.

Christianity historically requires the belief that Jesus conquered sin and death, and that we therefore are (or will be) saved from sin and death (by Jesus). But maybe by "belief in Christianity" one means something entirely different, like, "Trying to be a nice person." Certainly you can try to be a nice person even if you do not believe that Jesus was raised; you just can't hold that Jesus conquered sin and death. — Leontiskos

This seems to be the best answer; you do not resort to a redefinition of Christianity in any sense.

There are many Christians who consider the Resurrection to be a myth. The story does not need to gain its power from being literally true. Some religious thinkers who held views along these lines include - Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, Rudolf Bultmann, John Shelby Spong, David Friedrich Strauss. I grew up within the Baptist tradition and was sent to a religious school. We were taught to read the Bible as allegorical. — Tom Storm

That is very interesting. I have two questions around this belief structure. Do these thinkers have a different conception of what God the Father is like? And how do they imagine Christian salvation working? Does it still work through faith in Jesus?

Many Christians probably believe that the resurrection was a corporeal, cellular regeneration of Jesus' body. He was literally dead; then he was literally alive again -- like Lazarus, raised from the dead. Presumably these Christians also believe in the immaculate conception (Elizabeth's conception of Mary), the Holy Spirit's impregnation of Mary, the virgin birth (after which she remained a virgin, even though she bore more children--Jesus' four brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. The Gospels also mention unnamed sisters.

There are various miracles which don't involve the dead coming back to life, but which are not explainable--turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, and so on. There are various supernatural events in the Gospels, like the temptation of Christ, or the transfiguration.

If one can believe in the other supernatural pieces of Jesus' story, then Jesus' resurrection shouldn't present any problems.

I don't know how many supernatural strands in the life of Jesus St. Paul was aware of--after all, he had never met Jesus (except Jesus' ghost on the road to Damascus), and the Gospels hadn't even been written yet when Paul was busy founding Christianity. The death and alleged resurrection of Jesus seemed to be the part of Jesus' story that Paul had, and could have had, access to.

So, for Paul accepting the resurrection was an all-or-nothing choice.

I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't remember Jesus taking St. Paul's approach with the Disciples -- a group who disappointed Jesus on a number of occasions -- they would miss the big point of the daily lesson, fall asleep, or something else--slice off an ear, say, or "Jesus who?"

Question: By whose power was Jesus resurrected--his own, or God's? Just wondering. Somebody here probably knows. Assuming that the Gospels are not the gospel truth (they were, after all, edited) were Jesus' statements about the resurrection back written into the Gospels to conform to what was later believed?

Do these thinkers have a different conception of what God the Father is like? And how do they imagine Christian salvation working? Does it still work through faith in Jesus? — BT

I'm not immersed in their specific theologies but generally they hold a 'ground of being' style god (to use Tillich's famous phrase). The non-literal believers tend not to see god as any kind of anthropomorphism or 'father'. Salvation holds little significance. There is no requirement to be saved.

Spong is probably the most readable and accessible and anathema for many traditionalists.

“The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.”

Bishop John Shelby Spong

Something that might be considered is the requirement for a purportedly universal religious faith - Catholic means universal or all-encompassing - to be meaningful to an extremely wide range of listeners. After all at the time of Jesus Christ culture, outside Rome and Athens anyway, was still largely agrarian and tribal. And even in the thousands of years since, and until very recently, a large majority could be barely expected to grasp the niceties of philosophical theology. So it has to operate on different levels for different kinds of listeners. The so-called literalist intepretations of scripture which are often the target of considerable cynicism might be suitable for a very general audience who really need to understand the meaning through symbolic imagery.

It is significant that one of the first Patriarchs of the Christian faith, Origen, was extremely critical of what is now called 'biblical literalism' (while acknowledging that my knowledge of his highly recondite and voluminous teachings is minimal. ) Origen saw scripture as embodying three levels of meaning, which he associated with the body, soul, and spirit. The "literal" or "bodily" meaning corresponded to the text's immediate, surface-level meaning—its narrative, historical, or instructional content. While he recognized the importance of this level, he regarded it as only the entry point into a richer understanding.

Moving deeper, Origen proposed a "moral" or "soul-level" interpretation, where the text speaks directly to the reader's personal ethical development and inner life. At this level, scripture reveals insights meant to guide individuals toward moral transformation and closer alignment with divine virtues. Finally, he emphasized a "spiritual" or "allegorical" level, which he considered the highest form of interpretation. This level seeks to unveil the hidden, mystical, and theological meanings of scripture, pointing beyond individual ethical concerns to universal, transcendent truths about God and the soul’s relationship with the divine.

Origen criticized a purely literal reading of scripture, arguing that such an approach risked misunderstanding the true nature of God and the spiritual truths contained in the texts. Literalism, he contended, could result in absurdities or even portray God in ways incompatible with divine goodness and wisdom. He saw literalism as a failure to grasp the inspired, multidimensional character of scripture, which he believed was written in a way that intentionally concealed its full meaning to encourage deeper contemplation and insight.

And this in the second century AD!

I think modern fundamentalism, of which Biblical creationism is an example, has done the faith no favours in this respect. But then, it is important to know that Darwin's books were never placed on the Index of Prohibited Books of the Catholic Church nor were formally criticized by any of the mainstream Christian denominations outside the USA. Biblical creationism which claims that evolutionary theory contradicts the meaning of Scripture is largely of 20th century American origin. But then, we live in extremely confusing times, in many ways. Back in the paleo- and neolithic times, paleontologists can grade different epochs of prehistory by the kinds of chipped stone tools they find, which changed only slightly over thousands of years. Now, everything is changing about every 10 minutes very rapidly, all the time. So allowance has to be made for that.

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance. — Tom Storm

What do you like about that parable? Margaret Thatcher's comment on it sticks in my mind.

This seems to be the best answer; you do not resort to a redefinition of Christianity in any sense. — BT

:up:

I'm glad you're taking due care when it comes to redefinitions of Christianity.

Many would like to redefine Christianity away from Paul. But Paul's theology of the resurrection naturally matches that of the gospels. To take two examples at random regarding Jesus' power and victory over sin & death:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father. — John 10:17-18

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. — Matthew 12:28-29

-

The very word "gospel" (evangelion/εὐαγγέλιον) signified a military victory. Indeed, the "good news of Jesus Christ" was the good news (gospel) of his victory over sin and death. This is the core of Peter's sermons in Acts, "You crucified and killed [him,] But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24). This "good news" is precisely what got the Apostles in so much trouble after Jesus' resurrection (e.g. Acts 5:27-32). It is also what changed them from fearful people in hiding, into confident preachers, culminating at Pentecost (cf. Luke 24:36-49).

Do you understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew or one who "updated" the law? Did Jesus follow the commandments or did he add/delete existing ones?

It's hard to say in generality. Did you have a specific verse or issue in mind? I certainly don't think Jesus strays far from the Law. The Sermon on the Mount is key here, for this is the New Moses going up the Mountain to give the New Law. This sermon begins in Matthew 5, and I am especially thinking of v. 17 as beginning the teaching on the Law. The verses before that look like a sort of prelude.

It looks to me like Jesus took the seed or sapling of the Law and nourished it into a life-giving tree. He is developing it.

And, again, on the other hand...

From an anthropological view there is the case of people attending church on special occasions, celebrating the Christian holidays with its imagery and meaning, follow the scriptures as an ethical guide because of the deep truths contained in the text, and for all that don't believe the text is literal.

I'd be inclined to call people who observe the various rights and rituals of any religion by that name, anthropologically, because it's hard to make a distinction between the two "from the outside" -- it appears to be an internal debate of some kind.

Many Christians probably believe that the resurrection was a corporeal, cellular regeneration of Jesus' body. He was literally dead; then he was literally alive again — BC

It would seem that Paul was not one of them.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

(1 Corinthians 15:42-44)

The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, he was human in his physical body. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.

.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Answers. 1) Yes, of course. 2) Yes, of course. How or why not? What if anything Christian or about Christianity requires any belief in anything non-rational? The proposition here is that Christianity cleansed of all supernatural and non-rational aspects is just Christianity.

Of course at the same time, membership in certain "clubs" may depend upon having certain beliefs, but when was Christianity ever about being a member of a club? That is, beliefs, having them, is not a shibboleth for Christianity or for being a Christian. But living one's life in accord with certain principles is.

The creeds, Apostle's or Nicene, much is made about them. But what do they say? In short, "We believe...". The "believe" being an absolute defense against all argument. And a lot of members of clubs forget this - or never knew it - that the church in its creeds chooses belief for efficacy, steering clear of claims of facts that were then and are now ultimately insupportable.

And so-called Christians today forget or never knew that their Christianity was invented and refined centuries after the fact by a lot people who, obviously, were not there, their own efforts based on hearsay from folks, like Paul, who were not there. And it's relatively easy research to learn that early Christianity before its "improvement" was different and more radical from its engineered successor.

Bottom line, arguments about beliefs are a waste of time. Except as people might act on the basis of their beliefs, and that has been historically a deadly business.

Is it even possible to really believe in a claim like the resurrection? Sure, people can say they believe it, they can recite prayers that say it, they can chant affirmations, and so on, but can they really, truly believe it?

Can you just decide to believe something? I've always been puzzled by people who convert because they marry someone of faith or something of the sort, seemingly just deciding they are going to be such and such now and are therefore going to start believing a very arbitrary set of truth claims.

For me, to try to believe it and to say I do would be to lie. I believe the earth is round because I'm convinced by the evidence, not because I decided to. And the evidence for resurrection is extremely weak. And resurrection violates everything else in our experience. I have a hard time believing that very many people really believe that it actually happened as a literal historical fact. Many want to believe it and say they do, sure. Many identify tribally as Christian and affirm the things that one affirms as part of a cultural practice. But do they really believe, like really really? I tend to think people would behave radically differently if they were to really take this stuff seriously.

I don't see how I could possibly come to really believe it. And I feel that to say the creed or something, for me, would be in bad faith, would be a lie. And especially with sacred things, I feel it is wrong to lie.

I suspect that most people who recite the creed don't really believe what they are saying, that they aren't even very conscious of what they are saying. It seems more like they are programming themselves to try to conform to some orthodoxy. It seems to be more about affirming group membership and conformity than actual belief.

I often hear religious people say something like, "We believe X, Y, and Z." This is really fascinating to me. I puzzle over what that means. I would never say that. I would only ever say, "I believe..." I had a friend who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Prior to that, when we would discuss things, he would say, "I think" or "I believe," but after conversion, he started saying, "We believe X." I felt like I was no longer talking to my friend, but rather to a memeplex or something. Part of his agency and personhood had been relinquished.

I've had several friends and relatives become new converts to a religion and frankly, it feels kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, like each is less a human individual than they used to be, like my friend is gone, having been replaced by a set of doctrines and the authority of some religious leader or guru. You can't just hang out and have a conversation anymore. They are no longer free to think and consider things. Now they are just protectors and spreaders of the memeplex, and to question their belief is to attack the very foundation of their being. This is not a person in possession of an idea, but rather an idea in possession of a person. I find it rather disturbing.

I think no. Despite Leontisko's protestations (which don't seem to go further than that description) it is clearly hte case that a Christian must accept Christian doctrine. The name "Christ-ian" infers this is, at the base, the doctrine of hte Christ myth. If you do not accept the Christ myth, you're something else related to Christian. But clearly, if you reject the basis for the description of the sect, you're not in it.

That might seem reductive, but the concept of doctrine is pretty reductive, and it behooves me to avoid hte ridiculousness of sectarianism and just make a call, from my view.

if Jesus didn't physically ascend, then it completely changes the nature of the Christian faith
— Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's right. — Leontiskos

I agree as well. People can certainly believe what they choose (that’s the nature of belief), but it seems to me the most important difference between Christianity and all of the other major religions (Jewish, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others) is that for Christians, the one God became a man, died, and rose again. Without these three facts believed as a part of human history, Christianity offers nothing more (and maybe even less) than some of the others. If you don’t believe Jesus, who is God actually became a man, died, and rose again, then much of the New Testament is either lying or foolishness; and why listen to liars and fools when you could look to Buddha or to Hinduism for more depth, more honesty and more practical application?

The other important difference between Christianity and some of the other religions has to do with the resurrection, and that is our need for grace from God to be saved. Christians believe we can’t save ourselves. Whereas Hinduism and Buddhism place it all in our hands (or place the task of removing our hands from the picture, losing one’s self as up to us alone) and don’t speak of grace from God. So if you don’t believe in the resurrection, the proof of salvation and biggest out-pouring of grace, you may still believe in the need for grace and salvation, but you’d probably be better off pulling in some wisdom from the Indian, Tibetan region, and/or Buddhist histories that aren’t waiting around for grace and claim to have already connected with the other side of the shore line on their own.

.What is the "good news? According to Mark:

This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah. It began just as the prophet Isaiah had written:

“Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way.
He is a voice shouting in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord’s coming!
Clear the road for him!’”

This messenger was John the Baptist.

(1:1-4)

Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.“The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”

(1:14-15)

The good news is that the kingdom of God is near. It is the beginning of a new beginning. Those who heard the good news did not know that Jesus would be crucified. That could have nothing to do with the good news according to Mark.

In addition, according to Mark, forgiveness of sin came with repentance:

He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.

(1:4)

Forgiveness of sin is not part of the good news and does not require the death of Jesus.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? — BT

Absolutely. A belief is rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning; it needn't be true.

2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?

Maybe. Being "unsure" has varying degrees of doubt. Having a bit of doubt wouldn't preclude believing in traditional Christianity.

One could also embrace an untraditional view of Christianity, denying Paul's opinion, while embracing the supposed teachings of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels. A "Resurrection" could be viewed as figurative- didactic fiction.

Christians believe we can’t save ourselves. Whereas Hinduism and Buddhism place it all in our hands (or place the task of removing our hands from the picture, losing one’s self as up to us alone) and don’t speak of grace from God. — Fire Ologist

Meister Eckhart, German Catholic (1260-1328), might as well compare to the Yogi or a Buddhist given the strangeness of his poetic mysticism around 'birth of the Son' in the soul. Emptying oneself of everything, that the grace/Word of God may manifest, sounds eerily similar in practice to these other meditative traditions.

"The second point is, what must a man contribute by his own
actions, in order to procure and deserve the occurrence and the con
summation of this birth in himself? Is it better to do something toward
this, to imagine and think about God ? - or should he keep still and
silent in peace and quiet and let God speak and work in him, merely
waiting for God to act? Now I say, as I said before, that these words
and this act are only for the good and perfected people, who have so
absorbed and assimilated the essence of all virtues that these virtues
emanate from them naturally, without their seeking; and above all
there must dwell in them the worthy life and lofty teachings of our
Lord Jesus Christ. They must know that the very best and noblest
attainment in this life is to be silent and let God work and speak
within. When the powers have been completely withdrawn from all
their works and images, then the Word is spoken. Therefore he said,
'In the midst of the silence the secret word was spoken unto me.'
And so, the more completely you are able to draw in your powers
to a unity and forget all those things and their images which you
have absorbed, and the further you can get from creatures and their
images, the nearer you are to this and the readier to receive it. If only
you could suddenly be unaware of all things,10 then you could pass
into an oblivion of your own body as St. Paul did, when he said,
"Whether in the body I cannot tell, or out of the body I cannot tell;
God knows it" (2 Cor. 1 2 :2). In this case the spirit had so entirely ab
sorbed the powers that it had forgotten the body: memory no longer
functioned, nor understanding, nor the senses, nor the powers that
should function so as to govern and grace the body; vital warmth
and body-heat were suspended, so that the body did not waste dur
ing the three days when he neither ate nor drank. Thus too Moses
fared, when he fasted for forty days on the mountain and was none
the worse for it, for on the last day he was as strong as on the first.
In this way a man should flee his senses, turn his powers inward and
sink into an oblivion of all things and himself. Concerning this a
master1 1 addressed the soul thus: 'Withdraw from the unrest of ex
ternal activities, then flee away and hide from the turmoil of inward
thoughts, for they but create discord.' And so, if God is to speak
His Word in the soul, she must be at rest and at peace, and then
He will speak His Word, and Himself, in the soul - no image, but
Himself!" — Meister Eckhart, Sermon One

I'm going to go out on a limb here bit, but I think Jesus had disciples before he was crucified, and I would think it sensible to allow that they were Christians even then, as they already thought him the Messiah, and ...

Christ comes from the Greek word χριστός (chrīstós), meaning "anointed one". The word is derived from the Greek verb χρίω (chrī́ō), meaning "to anoint." In the Greek Septuagint, χριστός was a semantic loan used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)

Emptying oneself of everything, that the grace/Word of God may manifest, sounds eerily similar in practice to these other meditative traditions. — Nils Loc

I agree with that and have grown very interested in Buddhism these past few years. “Not my will, but thine be done.” We cannot become filled with God until we are emptied of ourselves.

Good stuff!

My point here is that, from what I can tell, the Yogic and Buddhist traditions do not make appeal to anyone or anything else to help the individual become empty. Assistance with obtaining enlightenment might actually be seen as a hindrance to enlightenment.

So I agree I must be empty to receive God or enlightenment fully, but, because of the impossibility of the resurrection that nevertheless actually occurred, I think we are shown that I will never find salvation/ enlightenment myself unless it calls me toward it, unless it raises me from the dead, and this reaching out is grace. This reaching out to me is God acting, not me acting, and this grace is essential before I can give my self up. The final step taken to achieve enlightenment is not taken by me; it is when the last bit of myself is taken by God, or taken by ultimate reality for the Buddhist. I have to serve myself over to God or ultimate reality, but it is not up to me whether what I serve will be taken. Salvation, total self-denial and union with reality/God, enlightenment, is unattainable by our own hand, our own self. We who would deny ourselves completely, affirm ourselves as deniers just as instantaneously. “I deny myself, therefore, I am still a self.”

So any moment of final enlightenment must be a gift, something we could not have made of our “selves”. We can’t be self-made empty selves. We can participate in making of our salvation, but we can’t complete it alone.

The resurrection as an actual historical event (an impossible physics that nevertheless stood in the light of day), means to me I need the supernatural to overcome the natural - I can’t raise myself from the dead without grace, just like I can’t achieve enlightenment without grace.

So belief in the actual resurrection may not be essential to a belief in the need for grace, but it is maybe the clearest sign that we must seek grace, let God do the final, ultimate work.

And I don’t know for sure if Buddhism and Hinduism truly deny grace. It’s just my current sense of them. In any event, my point is that, for Christians, the resurrection and proclamation that we all can be raised from the dead, makes clear that we must need God before we might be saved (or enlightened). So if someone says they are a Christian but doesn’t think the resurrection actually occurred, they might not understand what grace is and that there is no salvation without it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here bit, but I think Jesus had disciples before he was crucified, and I would think it sensible to allow that they were Christians even then, as they already thought him the Messiah — unenlightened

I posted this above. It gives clear textual support for what you are saying.

The dying for your sins is an after the fact attempt to make the incomprehensible comprehensive. How could the dead Messiah accomplish what was promised? By making his death part of the plan all along.

I just sometimes wonder whether Christians envision a Jesus who e.g. kept kosher and wore tzitzit.

To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity. — Outlander

That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. That being said, the idea of the "Messiah" was a largely evolving concept but seemed to have certain characteristics that coalesced around a theme, starting with most "earthly" and ending in the more speculative/heavenly:

Earthly (more definite/less speculative)
1) Restore the Davidic dynasty by being crowned King of Israel. The 1st Temple under the Davidic dynasty was destroyed by Babylonians and when Persia let Jews go back to Judea, they only let them become a province under a governorship, not an independent kingdom. This Messiah was seen as someone who would restore legitimacy and rightful rule over the Land of Israel in a purified manner. My guess, historically-speaking, is that this concept gained major traction as an opposition belief to all "so-called" rulers that ruled since Persians (Maccabees were only priests, and often ruthless to other Jews who opposed them, Herod was clearly a Roman puppet, etc.).

2) Ingathering of Jews across the Diaspora.. Supposedly the Lost Sheep of Israel and all those descended from the 12 tribes would be gathered in (not just Judhites/Levites/Benjaminites but Northern Israelite tribes as well).

3) Temple would be purified by right priestly practices and families from Aaron (Zadokite lineage). Post 70 CE this means the re-building of the Temple in Jerusalem.

4) The other nations will recognize the Jewish Kingdom and king as representing a way of life, a sort of spiritual awakening of sorts, in recognition of Judaic belief system. There will be an eternal era of peace.

More spiritual/speculative

5) A general resurrection of the dead would occur for the righteous.

6) Angels and God will be known and present in some sense

7) There may be a great battle before the last days before the eternal peace where the "wolf will lie down with the lamb". Presumably this battle would be led by the Messiah or at least encouraged by him. In some cases this would include angels to help the righteous Israelites battle the enemy forces.

Paul really seemed to change the Jewish notion of Messiah outlined above to more than a man that has great power, but a part of the godhead and whose death and resurrection abrogated the need to follow commandments in the Torah. That would be a major difference, as the original conception would not only still follow the Torah but presumably put it in place as THE law of the land (of the Jews) in its correct form (for example, presumably the Dead Sea Scroll sect was apocalyptic and thought their way of following the Torah was closest to the correct form to be applied- The Sons of Light versus the Sons of Darkness (both gentiles and Jews who did not follow Torah in their very strict manner).