surrection

plural surrections

1. countablenonce wordrareuncountableA rising.

   There is, indeed, a rising, but not a rising again. There is a surrection, but not a re-surrection.

   1856 May, D. D. Whedon, “The Resurrection, 1 Cor. xv”, in The Ladies’ Repository, volume XVI, number 17, page 309, column 1

   5 more examples

   I well remember those texts, Col. iii, 1, and Ephes. ii, 5, and many similar places; but these mention only quickening, and rising, and raising: there is mention of surrection, but not of re-surrection, much less of a first resurrection.

   1654, Nathaniel Homes, “Old Testament Evidence”, in The Resurrection Revealed, or The Dawning of the Day-Star, London: Simpkin and Marshall, published 1833, page 54

   As there muſt be a day of judgment, 2 Cor. 5. 10. ſo there muſt be a Reſurrection of the body; not only there may be, but there muſt be, and of the ſame body; not only the ſame ſpecifical, but the ſame numerical body: Otherwiſe it were not a Reſurrection, bu^([sic]) a Surrection; not a Reſuſcitation; but a ſuſcitation. And (as Eſtius ſaith) not a Regeneration (as it is called, Matth. 19. 28.) but a Generation.

   1676, “Of the Resurrection”, in The Morning Exercise Methodized; or Certain Chief Heads and Points of the Christian Religion Opened and Improved in Divers Sermons, by Several Ministers of the City of London, in the Monthly Course of the Morning Exercise at Giles in the Fields, May 1659, London: […] R. W. for Ralph Smith, […], page 428

   So of the resurrection of the dead. We do not mean to say that by natural reason we cannot demonstrate a future continued existence, but that a fact answering to the term resurrection is naturally neither cognoscible nor demonstrable. Resurrection means rising again, and evidently pertains, not to the soul, which never dies, but to the body, and implies that the same body which died is raised; for if not, it would not be a re-surrection, but a simple surrection, or perhaps creation.

   1845 April, [Orestes Brownson], “Art[icle] I.—The Christian Examiner and Religious Miscellany, January, 1845. Art[icle] VI. The Church.”, in Brownson’s Quarterly Review, volume II, number II, Boston, Mass.: Benjamin H. Greene, […], page 148

   The name logistic itself is not a resurrection, but a surrection, for it is an almost wholly disused word revived in an entirely new and useless meaning:[…]

   1909, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, page 611

   The Resurrection is essentially a surrection or an ascending that must no longer be understood as a philosophical transcending or an elevation in exteriority, already viciously impregnated with theology and opening the way to every dialectic.[…]Surrection is an ascendance or a phase that no longer goes to trans-cendence, the emergence of ex-istence insofar as it does not go to the ecstasis that loses itself in the object. […]Nonecstatic Ascension corresponds to the algebraic property of idempotence and it is a pure Surrection, which, like every scientific law, in a sense has no justification other than itself—it is ultimately axiomatic.

   2015, Robin Mackay, transl., Christo-Fiction: The Ruins of Athens and Jerusalem, New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, translation of Christo-fiction by François Laruelle, →ISBN, pages xv, 208, and 209