sschlichter

they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb

surely this is referring to a physical cross and a physical tomb.

But God raised him from the dead,

in a vacumm, this phrase could go either way, maybe it was a spiritual raising. However, it is not in a vacuum, it is surrounded the previous mention of a tomb and the following mention of a raising from the dead. He was dead in the tomb and was raisied from it.

and for many days he appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem.

Summary, a real cross, a real tomb, a raising from the dead, an appearing for many days.

Are you suggesting that this author is stating that Jesus is still in the tomb after being raised and appearing to many? real, cross, real tomb, allegorical raising, allegorical appearing, real speech - is that really what you see here?

James Brown

Real cross, real tomb, real resurrection of the spirit--the part of the human being that really matters, real visions of the spirit, but the body is still an empty shell buried somewhere, even hauled off by Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning to the final burial place (now unknown), since he ran out of time on Friday evening before the Sabbath started.

Peter "saw" Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, so should we look for their empty tombs?

sschlichter

(Mark 16:6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him.

(Luke 24:3) but when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

(Matt 28:6) He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come and see the place where he was lying.

(John 20:2) So she went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

(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.

Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John all seem to be talking about a missing physical body. The body was raised and is no longer present in the tomb in all 4 gospels. The body was in the tomb in Acts but was raised.

The author of Luke / Acts thought the body was raised in Luke but changed his mind in Acts?

Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John refer to a physical raising from the dead and mentioned the missing body, and then the same author referred to the same cross, same tomb, same raising, but did not mean physically like he meant in Luke????

Luke, the same author goes a step further and points out...

(Luke 24:39) Look at my hands and my feet; it's me! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have."
(Luke 24:40) When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
(Luke 24:41) And while they still could not believe it (because of their joy) and were amazed, he said to them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
(Luke 24:42) So they gave him a piece of broiled fish,
(Luke 24:43) and he took it and ate it in front of them.

Why is the spiritual allegorical Jesus eating fish?

The theological aims of all 4 authors seems to be to give you the impression that jesus rose bodily from his tomb and went to some lengths to make sure you understood it was bodily.

I do not see why Peter's speech would be taken out of this context (of at least the rest of the book of Acts)
----------------------------
The transfiguration has very different language. (Matt 17:9) Jesus commanded them, "Do not tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead."

mountainman

What does the Gospel of Peter tell us?

34 And early in the morning as the Sabbath dawned, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region roundabout to see the sepulchre that had been sealed.

35 Now in the night whereon the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, 36 there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with (lit. having) a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre. 37 And that stone which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was

X. 38 opened and both of the young men entered in. When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping 39 watch); and while they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come out of the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other (lit. the 40 one), and a cross following, after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached unto heaven, but of him that 41 was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And they 42 heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast thou (or Thou hast) preached unto them that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea.

XI. 43 Those men therefore took counsel one with another to go and report these things unto Pilate.

Should we be looking for a walking talking cross?
Did any of the ancient historians report a used cross
wandering around Judea, talking to itself "YEAH"!

Evidently the gPeter is written as a satire however
the simple and apolitical christians, against whom
the satire was directed, are unable to detect the
satire against their own preferred sect.

We can be sure the ancient christians understood
the satire, and immediately banned this book, and
caused it to go underground.

Doug Shaver

That is not something I would ever suggest.

I would suggest that in the author's opinion:

1. Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected;
2. The founders of his (the author's) religion said so;
3. Their saying so was reason enough for anyone to believe that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected.

If the author had believed that there existed an empty tomb known to have contained Jesus' body for some three days, and if he had believed that this tomb was evidence supporting his dogma, he would have said so.