James Brown

Reading Peter's first sermon post-resurrection, found in Acts 2, a few things occur to me:

1) No mention of Jesus' empty tomb. Peter mentions David's tomb, but Jesus was merely "raised to life." This seems to run counter to the argument that the Empty Tomb completely changes everything re: the disciples, other religions, etc.

2) No mention of Jesus' divinity prior to the resurrection. "Jesus of Nazareth was a man", "This man was handed over", "God has made this Jesus . . . Lord and Christ." So was Jesus the creator of the universe, as John tell us in his gospel, or was an ordinary guy who was promoted to divinity for his willingness to be crucified?

3) "I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day." Really? Was David's tomb nearby for easy viewing?

4) Is it just me, or is Peter's primary motivation merely to make the Israelis feel guilty for their participation in Jesus' death? In modern terms, when James Byrd was dragged to death by three racist rednecks, many citizens of Jasper felt a sort of communal guilt, even though they had nothing to do with the crime. That it happened in their town seemed to make them feel partly responsible. So with regards to Peter, his sermon sounds community-specific, addressed to a small group of people in that time period. By that token, should any other group of people in any other time period take heed to his message?

Tom Sawyer

The real question is whether or not Peter was able to produce Jesus's original birth certificate with God listed as the father.

Epesse

I hear that Jesus is not from Nazareth and so wasn't really eligible to be elected King of Jews.

Vampyroteuthis

Off to BC&H!

Toto

Interesting observation. The "empty tomb" is the cornerstone of modern apologetics, but earlier Christians seem to have relied more on the Holy Spirit or appearances or some other proof.

You realize, of course, that this speech was written in the second century by the author of Luke-Acts for his own theological aims. These aims included opposition to Marcion, who thought that Jesus was a spirit.

It possibly was at that time, or the author thought that it was.

Paging Jay Raskin . . .

The message here is an explanation of why Christians revere the Hebrew Scriptures but yet are not Jews, and why Christians will go on to embrace the Roman empire and reject Judaism. But different people will get different messages, as Christians got different meanings out of the Hebrew Scriptures.

sschlichter

This early christian (author of Acts) seemed to feel the empty tomb was important as well even if the word tomb does not appear in Peters sermon, his view is evident from...

(Acts 13:28) Though they found no basis for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed.
(Acts 13:29) When they had accomplished everything that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb.
(Acts 13:30) But God raised him from the dead,
(Acts 13:31) and for many days he appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. These are now his witnesses to the people.

Toto

This passage does not say that the tomb was empty, or that the empty tomb was used as proof of the resurrection. The didn't need that indirect proof if they had appearances.

Susan2

This to me appears to be Peter spreading the virus that he picked up in the tomb.

John 20: 7
And the Napkin (a Latin word, inserted into a Greek text), that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in one place.

Isaiah 53:9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.


1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

He was accused of blaspheme. But what does that mean? Treason, or blame?

If, in my mothers womb you conceived me, that is blame. Perhaps it is from there that Peter claims there was no deceit found in his mouth. Of course that would work quite well for a budding religion, especially at to infallibility.

If, He has come to destroy the Israelites, that would be treason. Treason wouldn't be tolerated even by the Romans. That to could work out well for the Romans, new religion.

Destroy, defame Israel. Let the Romans rule. One religion, one God, monotheism.

It begs the question what was the napkin wrapped together with?

andrewcriddle

Leaving aside the question as to the precise date of Acts, the rather primitive theology of the early sermons in Acts might suggest that they are somewhat older than the composition of the Luke-Acts narrative.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I agree that there is no reference to an empty tomb as such but doesn't 2:31 imply that the body of Christ is no longer in the grave ?

Andrew Criddle