Tag: Paul the Apostle

Why the Earliest Christians Didn’t Preach a Physical Resurrection

📅 Today is Day 14 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

📌 Introduction

Modern Christianity hinges on a specific, physical claim: that Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead—his body revived, left the tomb, and ascended into heaven. But did the earliest followers of Jesus really believe and teach this?

Today, we’ll explore a provocative question that cuts to the heart of Easter: Was the resurrection of Jesus originally understood as physical—or something more spiritual, symbolic, or visionary?

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief? The physical resurrection narrative relies heavily on later Gospel writings, not on early, verifiable evidence. Paul—the earliest New Testament writer—never describes an empty tomb or a physically resurrected Jesus in flesh and blood. Instead, his letters speak of visions, spiritual appearances, and glorified bodies.

2. Are alternative explanations considered? Few Christian traditions openly examine how early belief evolved. Yet some scholars argue the resurrection began as an experiential conviction (visions, dreams, internal revelations) later reimagined as physical stories to respond to skepticism and reinforce orthodoxy.

3. Is there independent corroboration? There is no non-Christian source confirming a bodily resurrection. And the earliest Christian writings—Paul’s letters, circa 50 CE—lack the physical details found in the Gospels written decades later. The “physical” Jesus shows up as the tradition matures, not in the beginning.

4. Is the claim falsifiable? No. The resurrection is a faith-based belief, immune to external testing. Attempts to explain the resurrection as a physical event ignore how core doctrines shifted over time to meet theological or pastoral needs.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers? Yes. Why does Paul describe a “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44) and list only appearances without empty tomb stories? Why are the physical details—wounds, meals, touch—absent from early creeds and only present in later Gospels?

📖 Early Christian Confusion: Paul vs. the Gospels

Paul’s Resurrection Jesus:

  • Appears in visions (Gal 1:12, 1 Cor 15:8).
  • Not described as physical or touchable.
  • Emphasizes a transformation from “perishable” to “imperishable” (1 Cor 15:42–53).
  • Says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50).

Gospel Jesus (Decades Later):

  • Eats fish (Luke 24:42–43).
  • Invites physical touch (John 20:27).
  • Has scars and wounds.

This transition suggests doctrinal development—not eyewitness consistency.

💡 A Resurrection of Meaning, Not Matter?

Progressive theologians argue that the resurrection began not as a resuscitated corpse but as a spiritual affirmation:

Jesus lives—within us, among us, through the Spirit.

In this view, resurrection meant vindication, not animation. It was a symbol of divine approval, not a miracle of medical reversal. The early church didn’t need a physical body to believe in hope, love, and renewal.

Over time, however, rival sects, increasing persecution, and theological division pushed the physical resurrection forward as a litmus test of orthodoxy. To reject it became heresy—not simply a different opinion.

❓ A Question for Today’s Believers

If the first Christians didn’t require a literal, flesh-and-blood Jesus to believe he conquered death… Why should we?

Isn’t spiritual resurrection—influence, transformation, legacy—more coherent, meaningful, and morally inspiring than a tale of revived tissue?

🎯 Conclusion

The earliest Christian writings are not concerned with grave robbing or biological reversal. They are focused on hope beyond despair, life beyond violence, and presence beyond death—all powerful concepts that don’t require a physical Jesus walking out of a tomb.

Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we are led to this conclusion: The physical resurrection was not the original claim. It was the theological evolution of a spiritual experience. And that evolution says more about human need than divine action.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: With What Kind of Body Did Jesus Rise… If He Rose? Spiritual vs Flesh

Description: This video delves into the nature of Jesus’ resurrection, exploring whether early Christian belief emphasized a spiritual or physical resurrection. It examines scriptural interpretations and theological perspectives that shed light on this pivotal aspect of Christian doctrine.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Paul’s Jesus vs. Gospel Jesus – Two Different Messiahs?

📅 Today is Day 8 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The God Question’s Easter Special continues with a closer look at something many believers have never considered: Is the Jesus described by the apostle Paul the same as the Jesus found in the Gospels?

At first glance, the answer seems obvious. But dig deeper, and the cracks begin to show.

✍️ Two Portraits, One Name

Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings we have—predating the Gospels by several decades. Yet curiously, Paul shows little interest in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

  • He never mentions Jesus’s parables.
  • He doesn’t refer to Jesus’s miracles.
  • There’s no nativity story, baptism, or Sermon on the Mount.
  • And surprisingly, he rarely quotes Jesus at all.

Instead, Paul’s focus is overwhelmingly on the risen Christ—a cosmic, spiritual figure revealed to him in a vision. His Jesus is not a humble Galilean rabbi but a divine Lord who exists beyond time and space, offering salvation through faith in his death and resurrection.

In contrast, the Gospel writers (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke) paint a much more grounded picture—a teacher, healer, and apocalyptic prophet who walked dusty roads, clashed with religious authorities, and taught ethical and moral lessons to the crowds.

🤯 Doctrinal Evolution or Divine Consistency?

If the Gospels and Paul are describing the same person, why the stark difference?

Some scholars argue this is simply a difference in emphasis: Paul had no need to rehash the known stories. But others suggest something more provocative:

Paul invented the theological Christ—and the Gospel writers later tried to humanize him.

This idea challenges the traditional Christian claim of doctrinal consistency. It suggests that early Christianity evolved, with beliefs shifting based on theological needs, cultural pressures, and evangelistic aims—not based on an unchanging, historical truth.

🧠 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s apply the same critical lens we’ve used throughout this series:

  1. Does this claim rely on empirical evidence or belief?
    Paul’s Jesus is based on personal revelation, not historical reporting. He explicitly says he received his gospel “not from any man” (Galatians 1:12).
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
    The theological development of Christology is rarely acknowledged in church. But when viewed historically, the divergence between Paul and the Gospels makes sense as the result of evolving beliefs in a growing religious movement.
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
    We have no contemporaneous non-Christian sources confirming Paul’s vision or his interpretation of Jesus. His letters stand as theological documents, not verifiable history.
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
    No. Paul’s vision of the risen Christ is purely subjective and cannot be confirmed or denied outside his own testimony.
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
    Yes. Why would God reveal the most important truth in history through a private vision and allow such divergence in the earliest Christian writings? Why doesn’t Paul reference Jesus’s earthly ministry?

🧭 Final Thoughts

If Paul had never lived, would Christianity look anything like it does today?

It’s a fair question—and one worth asking. Paul’s influence on Christian theology is immense. But it’s also worth considering whether he reinterpreted—or even reinvented—the message of Jesus to fit a new vision of salvation.

The God Question doesn’t claim certainty where there is none. But when two portraits of Jesus emerge—one cosmic and abstract, the other earthly and human—we should at least pause and ask:

Which one, if either, reflects reality?

For Further Exploration

Watch this Video: “Jesus vs Paul: The Origins of a Religious Schism in Early Christianity”
Presenter: Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
Duration: Approximately 30 minutes
Description: Dr. Ehrman explores the potential divergences between Jesus’ original teachings and Paul’s interpretations, examining how Paul’s writings may have influenced early Christian theology.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.