For tale-telling purposes, I wonder if the Christians didn't get it right, or anyway right with one small exception: What if resurrection were the truth, but Christianity got it backwards?
Resurrection from the dead means that something -- miraculously from the point of view of the living -- came back to life. From the point of view of the living, it's pretty amazing, not to mention desirable since the vast numbers of the living cling to being alive.
But what if this whole scenario were simply backwards and the real miracle were that the living were resurrected in death?
Since human bias and judgment and hope and belief rest largely (if unfortunately) on the agreement of others and since the dead represent and undeniable majority whose truth seems undeniable based on the number of gravestones and lamentations that are accorded to them ... why then should a resurrection into a living format be more miraculous or credible than a resurrection into death, the venue which enjoys a runaway majority of voters?
Is it possible that somewhere, some segment of the majority is digging out gaily-colored frocks and hats decked with flowers and blue suits not worn since last Easter and up in some hastily-erected pulpit a smiling minister to the majority is intoning the re-framed words:
I am the resurrection, and the death:And after the morning service, everyone could have cookies and coffee and the children could race about looking for the chocolate delights left by a benevolent Easter bunny. After which, everyone could return to a less exuberant and more normal state of existence....
He that believeth in me, though he were alive, yet shall he die.
A state of existence which might equally wonder if the living didn't get resurrection right.
Building doorways between here and there is akin to Easter bunnies that lay chocolate eggs. It's tasty, perhaps, but it hardly accords with a truthful peace.