On The Celestial Christ And Earthly Jesus Theories

Among the basic tenets of Christianity are a belief in both a savior representative and in the resurrection of the dead.  During the embryonic era of Christianity there were well documented contrasting views as to the nature of each. The source documents are early Christian writings dated to the 2nd Century, among which are those writings commonly known as the New Testament. 

The contrasting views of the nature of the savior representative related as to whether such was a celestial being, a natural human being, or even a docetic humanoid. The debate as to the nature of the resurrection ranged from whether there was such an occurrence at all; to whether such was physical, celestial, post physical death, or a during one's lifetime event.

Conflicting ideologies as to the nature of the savior representative were reflected by varying views regarding the nature of the salvific process itself.  Questions as to whether salvation was this worldly or other worldly; a deliverance from elements of this world or from a celestial torment; on behalf of a specific demographic or catholic as to its scope were each factors as to any given perspective as to the nature and mission of the ideal savior.

With regards to Christianity itself, such perspectives eventually became a test of fellowship from the standpoint of the so called early Orthodox Church.  Accusations of heresy were levied against those who denied the physical resurrection of an earthly Jesus, and as is reflected in the writings of the Gnostic Christians, the feelings seem to have been mutual.  The teachings of the Pauline writings became a matter of debate as is revealed in 2nd-3rd Century Patristics; and Tertullian even labeled Paul as the apostle of the heretics. 

Thus the general claims of the Orthodox Church seems to have been that those who maintained faith in a celestial Christ had departed from the original doctrine of an earthly Jesus. Yet the chronological logistics of a seemingly evolving Christology are debatable, and the proverbial shoe may have been on the other foot. Consider the observations of Doston Jones; commentator on the Facebook Group "The Bible Geek Listeners", regarding the implications of Pauline writings such as 1 Corinthians 15:

"there are numerous reasons why I don't think that the Corinthian Creed is speaking of a bodily Earthly resurrection. But I'll give one reason that is not often discussed. In that very same chapter (and elsewhere in Paul's letters), Paul is addressing the concern among the churches that there will be no Resurrection. So, he goes out of his way to explain that there will in fact be a resurrection for believers, but that it will be in a spiritual body like Jesus. In fact, he goes out of his way to distinguish the heavenly spiritual body of Jesus from the earthly body of Adam.

This tells us two things: 1.) if the earliest and default belief among Christians was that Jesus was raised bodily on Earth, then we have to explain why the believers in Paul's churches did not think there would be a physical resurrection; and 2.) When Paul does describe the resurrection of believers, he says that it will be in *heaven* in a spiritual body (just like Jesus). Then he *contrasts* it with a human body (see generally, 1 Cor. 15:40-49)."

Now as to which concept of the savior representative preceded the other, the case may never be settled conclusively. Yet there remains another question related to the matter which in my judgment bears serious consideration and contemplation. That being whether either the concept of a celestial Christ or an earthly Jesus would have even developed to any noticeable degree during the era of the Jewish Independence Movement. This line of inquiry admittedly entails troubling consequences for the theories of the historicity of 1st Century Christianity. 

Nonetheless; it seems debatable whether either savior representative theory would have been marketable in Judea during the days of the Jewish Independence Movement; which commenced with the uprising of Judah of Galilee in 6 CE and which ended quite abruptly with the bloody and violent subjugation of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE. It seems inconceivable to imagine the concept of a non military messiah as a meaningful motif among a people whose quest for national independence resulted in two major wars and several minor uprisings over the course of 130 years. 

Now perhaps the origin of the Jesus myth may be traced to some minor pre 135 CE mystical cults who imagined such as a counter effort to the conventional clan of the Jewish Independence movement. But due to the lack of any credible evidence to substantiate the theory, the consideration of alternative possibilities seems both preferable and practical. 

That said, it is my personal thought that the very notion of a non military messiah and a spiritual kingdom are each concepts more suited to the plight of the post 135 CE diaspora Jews, than to those of the era of the Jewish Independence Movement.  In such a case, the nature of the savior representative would be irrelevant to the intended end of any given mythical narrative so related.

Though admittedly speculative, these are my thoughts as to both the celestial Christ and earthly Jesus theories.

Dave Henderson

Denison, Texas