Shi'ite, Isma'ili and Christian gnosis...

I must say that the spritual path that has been a constant curiosity to me over the past few years falls under the title of this post.  Most of this comes from the writings of Henry Corbin and Peter Lamborn Wilson and the trails followed in their bibliographies.

A recent article I was linked to which uses frequent references to a recent book by Todd Lawson on The Crucifixion and the Qur'an spells out my understanding of what the Qur'an says on the crucifixion and the way in which the "common" understanding entered Islamic tradition came to be (which, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of what the text says).  If you dig deeply into the tafsir you find a variety of opinions from the scholars of Islam as to what really happened.  There is no one answer. 

This has always been the sticking point for me when it come to Islam.  The Qur'an, to me, is a book of amazing power and beauty (a few verses notwithstanding...).  However, the hadith and tafsir pose great challenges which, to me, require just as much faith as Christians are accused of needing to believe in the vast and varied tradition of Bible transmission.

Anyhow, the point is that the Qur'an does not not deny the crucifixion itself; it denies the power to those who thought they had the power to crucify him.  The idea of a "substitute" is, to put it bluntly, a silly idea.  It would mean that either Jesus lived to a ripe old age and died or resides physically in space somewhere.

So the "angelology" and the "gnosis" of these paths as spelled out by Corbin, Wilson and similar ilk I could easily absorb.  Even the idea of the "hidden" and/or "eternal" Imam (and his hujjat) would not be too difficult for me to accept. 

However, there is one question that lingers: what of the resurrection?  The Crucifixion is not the crux of the Christian faith unless the Resurrection is right there with it.  Both are necessary.  No resurrection, dead Jesus.  End of story.

The Isma'ili view gives an understanding of what this would mean from an Islamic perspective.  However, the deeper question is this: had he been crucified with no resurrection claimed, there would most likely have been no Christian faith.  Faith in what? 

Even gnostics, though obviously with a different interpretation, understand there to have been a "resurrection" of some kind and to a very large extent it would appear that Isma'ilism picked up this thread as filtered through Neoplatonic thought. 

If Christianity had existed without a resurrection what would it have been?  What message would have been so substantial for it to have spread as it did?  Would there have been an Islam?  A Shi'ite or Isma'ili Islam?

So again, the question I have yet to find from a Shi'ite, Isma'ili or Shi'ite Isma'ili viewpoint is their take on the Christian view of the resurrection.  Would the idea of it being a "spiritual" or "esoteric" event have been enough of a message for it to have spread as it did for hundreds of years prior to the advent of Islam?