One thing that people do not consider is that myths surround resurrection, and the the son of God go way back in every religion they exist. in. if the prophecies of the messiah are genuinely from God and given to man from the begining is it any wonder that so many beliefs with variations on the same theme would result? We can trace back to the earliest known myths but even those are known to only through our ability to find evidence of them and therefore do not imply the actuall origin. If God speaks to man then it is no wonder to me that every culture shares some aspect of a hidden truth. Another thing to consider is that the Christian religion was hijacked by the pagan church of Roman which attempted to superimpose their deities on Christian Characters. Ishtar became Mary, Apollo Paul, etc. This further blurred the seperate and unique origin of the Christian faith.

The voice of God, is another reason for the similarity between Pagan beliefs and Christian ones. Mosses heard the voice of God on the gentle breeze while in awe of a natural phenomenon. God speaks to us through nature. He speaks of the ressurection in every morning sun rise and in the changing of the seasons. Death is explained in the chrysalis of a butterfly or in the fallen seed nestled in the earth in Autumn. God speaks and we all listen and have arrive at parallel interpertations. Yet to one people his voice was clear they were choose to deliver it to us all and from their midst the salvation spoken of by the blue corn moon.

"Resurrection" as a phenomenon, I think deserves a closer consideration
that what you're giving it. I'll allay a possible concern up front I accept the
miraculous physical resurrection of Jesus. In fact I consider that the Byzantine
Church has it right on this point-- resurrection is the central event of Christianity
(or should be instead of crucifiction.) So I'm not saying what I think you are
taking from my thought.

The gospel narratives do consistently prsent Jesus (among other things)
as a wisdom teacher and the disciples as consistently missing the point.
The spiritual sense of events is always highlighted. Therefore, it matters not
that Lazarus dies again (although we have no record of it, we simply assume.)
Nor does it matter whether Darius' daughter ever dies, they both have entered
"the deathless." Every witness to the event was transformed. I think that the
relation of Sleep to Death is something gnosticly significant, not just a literal
distinction (see Sweedenborg).

All these resurrection stories prefigure the new heaven and earth. So to say
that Jesus' resurection was something different for all time is problematical.
It was widely believed that one of the 12 was blessed to never taste death.
Likewise Elijah diappears in the same way Jesus does. To reference the
road to Emmaus in my thinking means we have to discuss the transfguration.
Jesus was always "glorified" and hanging out with Moses et al, but only on
one occasion did a few disciples get it. So for disciples not to recognize
the risen Christ is not unusual. So to say Jesus arose for all time as
something unlike anything seen before denies several doctrinal points--
1) his Divinity from the beginning (he din't become something new), 2) his
physicality (meaning that god can raise himself but humans can't and won't),
the Divine Image and Likeness of humans (if once and for all then we'll never
be anything like him). New Jerusalem theology requires that all arise from
deadness or sleep into their fullness of glory as joint-heirs and equal-children.

To say that the early followers of the way were not pagans is to miss the point
of Paul, to miss Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman, to miss that the
first convert was a eunich. I concur with Bishop Spong (and Origen among
others) that the core of the teaching us universal salvation. Jews, Romans,
Slaves, Samaritans, Persians, Women and Eunichs were all invited to the table
as equals both spiritually and socio-politically. True, the pagans adopted Jewish
values, but that they were not required to be circumcised, allowed to eat temple-
sacrificed meat, pray wherever they like; but the radical inclusion and the "coming
alive in Christ" were the marks of the New Cult that celebrated a New Jerusalem.