Resurrection Creed

If I'm going to use any kind of Creed or "Statement of Faith" that I didn't write myself and yet isn't simply quoting a passage of Scripture.  I'm gonna have to go with The Old Roman Symbol.

The Latin text of Tyrannius Rufinus:

Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem;
et in Christum Iesum filium eius unicum, dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine, qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris, unde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos;
et in Spiritum sanctum,
sanctam ecclesiam,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem.

The Greek text of Marcellus of Ancyra:
Πιστεύω οὖν εἰς θεòν πατέρα παντοκράτορα·
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου,
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα ἀναστάντα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς
καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾳ τοῦ πατρός, ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς·
καὶ εἰς τò ἅγιον πνεῦμα,
ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν,
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν,
ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

In English.

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life aionios)

This was the skeleton of what would become The Nicene Creed and The Apostle's Creed.

What fascinates me, is that as all these complicated additions were added to try and clarify disputes about the Trinity and the Nature of Christ, an important clarification was lost, that The Resurrection is of the Flesh/Carnal/Bodily.

This clarification also exists in Irenaus "Rule of Faith" recorded in Against Heresies.

…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…

Further clarifying all Humanity will rise this way in addition to Jesus.

Origen is the one major Pre-Nicene writer who (it's often alleged) didn't teach a Bodily Resurrection, and that is why he became such a controversial figure criticized in his time and repeatedly condemned by later generations.  Not his belief that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God.  Methodius of Olympus wrote a whole book against Origen's view called On The Resurrection.

Some scholars say 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 contains the earliest Christian Creed, that is pretty much only about Christ's Death and Resurrection according to The Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15 is the definitive discussion of The Resurrection in Scripture.  People who want to teach a Resurrection that is only Spiritual and not Bodily will take verses 42-49's distinction between the physical and the spiritual, the earthy and heavenly, and then take verse 50's declaration of "Flesh and Blood cannot Inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" as proof the Earthly Flesh won't be raised.

What they need to do is read on, verses 51 and 52 say we will be changed, and specifically some of us will be without needing to "sleep" first.  And then verses 53 and 54 declare that the corruptible will put on in-corruption and the mortal will put on immortality.  This is not compatible with a Platonic, Neoplatonic or Gnostic notion that our Spirit/Soul needs to be liberated from our current fleshly bodies, he's teaching that the spiritual will be added to the terrestrial not the terrestrial being taken away.

In other places Paul talks about a sense in which we're already risen right now, in Baptism we are made dead to the Law in Christ and then Risen.  But that is not the full picture, the difference between Believers and Unbelievers is for us the Spiritual Resurrection already happened, but we will all see a Bodily Resurrection before The White Throne Judgment.

1 Corinthians 6:12-16 also makes clear the Resurrection is of our flesh.

2 Corinthians 5 is also sometimes abused to argue for a spiritual Resurrection, it's the origin of suggesting that our physical body is like cloths for the spirit/soul.  This should be understood in the context of the discussion of Nakeness in Genesis 2 and 3 and what I just said about 1 Corinthians 15. Our Mortal body will put on the immortality that Adam and Eve lost, rendering cloths made of leaves or animal skins or cotton no longer necessary.

Revelation clearly talks about a Bodily Resurrection. Romans 8:11 also heavily implies a Bodily Resurrection.

Now I think I basically agree with the final conclusions of the first four Ecumenical Councils on the main issues they discussed.  But too much other stuff is wrapped up in them for me to want to identify myself as Nicene or Chalcedonian. And I frankly don't think the nuances of how to understand The Trinity or The Incarnation are quite as important as getting right our belief in a Bodily Resurrection.

Even Augustine of Hippo did clearly believe in a Bodily Resurrection, it's just easy to get confused since he taught so many other errors often linked to spiritualizing the Resurrection.

Whether or not we have a conscience state between Death and Resurrection, that is not The Gospel.