THE GOSPEL OF PETER (70-160). Question: Is it Docetic?

rakovsky · Apr 9, 2019

Background:
The Gospel of Peter survives in fragmentary form, the largest remnant is a Passion story from the Akhmim Fragments, and two Papyrus Fragments from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy 4009 and P.Oxy. 2949) may also belong to this otherwise lost work.

The Passion Story from the Akhmim Fragments can be found here:
The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

Oxyrhynchus Fragment #4009, whose estimated date of inscription is 150 AD and could be another part of the Gospel of Peter, is online here:
The Oxyrhynchus 4009 gospel. - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Oxyrhnchus Fragment #2949 is here:
The gospel of Peter. - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ron Cameron in The Other Gospels theorizes that "The Gospel of Peter was probably composed in the second half of the first century, most likely in western Syria. As such, it is the oldest extant writing produced and circulated under the authority of the apostle Peter."

According to Wikipedia:

Oxyrhynchus (Greek: Ὀξύρρυγχος, Coptic Pemdje; Arabic el Bahnasa) is a city in Middle Egypt located about 160 km south-southwest of Cairo in Minya Governorate. It is also an archaeological site, considered one of the most important ever discovered... In the Hellenistic period, Oxyrhynchus was a prosperous regional capital, the third-largest city in Egypt. After Egypt was Christianized, it became famous for its many churches and monasteries... In the Christian era, Oxyrhynchus was the seat of a bishopric, and the modern town still has several ancient Coptic Christian churches.

Oxyrhynchus - Wikipedia

The largest section of the Gospel of Peter was found in 1886 by French archaeologists in a monk’s grave at Akhmim, in Upper Egypt. I read online that the papyrus was found in the person's hand, and I know that there is an Orthodox tradition of burying people with sacred texts in their hands (for example, a medieval Russian leader was). Another scholar asserted that there was nothing to suggest that the buried person found at Akhmim was a monk other than the fact that he held the papyrus.

F.F. Bruce writes that the Gospel of Peter absolves Pilate of

responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church. He withdraws from the trial after washing his hands, and Herod Antipas takes over from him, assuming the responsibility which, in Luke's passion narrative, he declined to accept. Roman soldiers play no part until they are sent by Pilate, at the request of the Jewish authorities, to provide the guard at the tomb of Jesus. The villians of the piece throughout are 'the Jews' - more particularly, the chief priests and the scribes.

F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 93.
Gospel of Peter

Timothy Henderson in his book The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics, gives "examples of later Christians esteeming Pilate, including Augustine's classification of Pilate as a prophet of the kingdom of God, Ethiopic homilies from the 5th-6th centuries describing Pilate as a Christian martyr, Coptic use of Pilate as a baptismal name in the 6th-7th centuries".

Eusebius, in Book VI of his "Church History", writes about Serapion, Bishop of Antioch in 190 AD:

There is another treatise composed by him [Bp. Serapion] about the Gospel called 'according to Peter', which he drew up to expose the false statements contained in it, for the benefit of some members of the church at Rhossus, who by the means of the aforesaid book had succumbed to unorthodox doctrines. Of this it will be well to adduce some passages in which he states his view of the book writing thus:

For we, brethren, accept Peter and the other apostles as we would Christ, but, as experienced men, we repudiate what is falsely written under their name, knowing that we have not had any such things delivered to us. For I, when I was with you, supposed that all of you adhered to the right faith, and, not having gone through the Gospel which they produced under the name of Peter, I said: If this is all that seems to cause you scruples, let it be read. But now that I have learned from what has been told me, that somewhat of heresy was nesting in their mind (lit. their mind had its lair in a certain heresy), I will take care to come to you again: so, brethren, expect me soon.

but you who have comprehended of what manner of heresy Marcion (Gr. Marcianus) was, and how he contradicted himself, not understanding what he uttered, will learn the truth from what has been written to you (in this treatise).

For we have been enabled to borrow this very Gospel from others who used it, namely the successors of those who were its authors (lit. began it) whom we call Docetae (Seemers) - for most of their notions belong to that school - and to go through it, and to find that most of it is of the right teaching (word) of the Saviour, but some things are adventitious; a list of which we have drawn up for you.

Wikipedia's article on the Gospel of Peter says:

The dating of the text depends to a certain extent on whether the text condemned by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch upon inspection at Rhossus is the same as the text that was discovered in modern times.[6] The Rhossus community had already been using it in their liturgy.
...
The Gospel of Peter was recovered in 1886 by the French archaeologist Urbain Bouriant in the modern Egyptian city of Akhmim (sixty miles north of Nag Hammadi). The 8th- or 9th century manuscript had been respectfully buried with an Egyptian monk.

Walter Cassels wrote in his 1894 study, "The Gospel According to Peter" about the fragments found at Akhmim:

The thirty-three sheets of parchment, forming sixty-six pages,commence with an otherwise blank page, bearing a rough drawing of a Coptic cross, upon the arms of which rise smallercrosses of the same description, and the letters [symbol] and[symbol] stand the one on the left, the other on the right ofthe lower stem of the large cross. Over the page commences afragment of the“Gospel of Peter,”which continues to the end ofpage 10, where it abruptly terminates in the middle of a sentence.

Deacon Vassilios Papavassiliou writes that Bishop Serapion believed that the book wasn't really written by the Apostle Peter due to the Docetism that he saw in it:

A good example of how the Orthodoxy of a book helped determine its apostolicity can be found in Euesbius’ account of Serapion and the Gospel of Peter... [T]he fact that the Gospel of Peter contained docetic theology was evidence enough that it was not written in the time of the Apostles. Therefore, it could not have been written by St Peter, nor was it ancient.
THE RETURN OF GNOSTICISM?

Due to Eusebius' remarks, I don't think, and am not implying that the Gospel of Peter, has a treasured status in the Coptic Church. Rather, I am looking to see whether you or a Coptic perspective would classify the Gospel of Peter as Docetic or as simply apocryphal.

Docetism:
According to Wikipedia:

In Christianity, docetism (from the Koine Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"[1][2]) is the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3][4] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. The word Δοκηταί Dokētaí ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity... Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the... Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Orthodox Tewahedo...

Definitions
Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.[11] The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.[12][13] Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus's body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.

Christology
Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them... In his critique of the theology of Clement of Alexandria, Photius in his Myriobiblon held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that "[Clement] hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but only seems to be."

Docetism - Wikipedia

According to The A to Z of the Coptic Church by Gawdat Gabra, Docetism "refers to the belief that Christ did not have the same flesh as we do, but only seemed to. Docetism, like Gnosticism, is of non-Christian origin, but it invaded Christianity." The book also says that the gnostic "Apocalypse of Peter" found in the Nag Hammadi library (which is different than the earlier, Greek-language "Apocalypse of Peter") "features a docetic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion that has the 'living Jesus' laughing at folly of those crucifying his physical body."
The Claremont Coptic Encylclopedia says that the term "Docetists" first appeared in the above-quoted letter by Bishop Serapion to refer to a heretical group. The encyclopedia adds that "Photius (ninth century) charged CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA with docetism, but Clement rebuked the denial of Christ's flesh in his own writings."

rakovsky · Apr 9, 2019

Is the Gospel of Peter Docetic?

Arguments that it is Docetic
One argument that it is Docetic is that the late 2nd century Bishop Serapion reported that those who used it were "the successors of those who were its authors whom we call Docetae". On the other hand, Theodoretus in the 5th century wrote that the non-Docetic Nazoraeons were using it: "But the Nazoraeans are Jews, honoring Christ as a just man, and using the gospel called according to Peter."

M.R. James wrote in his Introduction to it that "It is not wholly orthodox: for it throws doubt on the reality of the Lord's sufferings, and by consequence upon the reality of his human body. In other words it is, as Serapion of Antioch indicated, of a Docetic character." (The Gospel of Peter)

Walter Cassels writes in his study of the text about its depiction of Christ's Passion that

the representation that Jesus suffered no pain... and that he was immediately “taken up,” whilst his body subsequently presents aspects not common to the canonical Gospels, may have seemed to the careful bishop sufficiently Docetic to warrant at least his not very severe condemnation.
...
It will be remembered that, in the fragment, the only cry from the cross is: “‘Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me,’andhaving spoken, he was taken up.”... It is also claimed as, perhaps, the most Docetic representation of the fragment, for the idea was that one Christ suffered and rose, and another flew up and was free from suffering.[46]
...
One of the passages which are supposed most clearly to betray Docetic tendencies is the expression, v.10, that when the Lord was crucified “he kept silence, as feeling no pain”. It is evident that these words may either be taken as simply representing the fortitude with which suffering was endured, orunderstood to support the view that no pain was really suffered, though this is by no means actually said.

FOOTNOTES
[46] Cf. Irenaeus,Adv. Haer.iii. 12.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37494/37494-pdf.pdf)

On the other hand, Cassels says that the reference to Christ being "taken up" at His death reflects only an early, softer variety of Docetism:

The representation in Peter is understood to be that the divine descended upon the human Christ in the form of the dove at baptism, and immediately ascended to Heaven again at his death. There is not here, however, any declaration of a double Christ, or any denial of the reality of the Christ's body, such as characterised the later Docetae; indeed, the fact that the dead body is still always spoken of as that of “the Lord” seems distinctly to exclude this, as does the whole subsequent narrative. Whatever Docetism there may be in this fragment is of the earliest type, if indeed its doctrines can be clearly traced at all; but undoubtedly when the sect had become pronounced heretics, orthodox Christians detected their subtle influence in much that was in itself very simple and harmless.

Arguments that it is not Docetic.
Michael Bird suggests that it is probably not Docetic:

Just before he dies the Petrine Jesus cries out, ‘my power, my power, why have you forsaken me’ (Gospel of Peter 5.19)... The statement here is no more docetic than Mk. 5.30 where Mark reports that ‘Jesus knew in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone out from him’. The same is perhaps true of the following phrase where it states ‘and after saying this he was taken up’. This could conceivably mean a variety of things including the separation of a heavenly being from the man Jesus at the cross, a confusing reference to an ascension of Jesus’ Spirit at the cross, or merely exclaiming that Jesus died and went to be with the Father somewhat akin to the Lucan Jesus’ prayer: ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’ (Lk. 23.46)... The author(s) may have docetic sympathies or consciously embedded docetic features in the document in deliberately cryptic fashion, but this element is clearly subdued and does not dominate the text.

Euangelion: Is the Gospel of Peter Docetic?

P.M. Head, in his essay "On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter" comments on the book's statement "But he held his peace as if he felt no pain":

The phrase... is for many scholars the linchpin for a theory of G.P.'s docetism. The problem has always been that this does not seem to cohere with the evidence of the rest of the document which clearly records the death of the Lord, and implies his suffering (vv13f). In GP the silence of Jesus appears at the crucifixion rather than during the trial narratives as in the synoptics. ... It is important to note... that in GP the silence of Jesus is closely connected with his apparent freedom from pain... The question of the meaning of [the Greek word os] cannot be settled on purely grammatical grounds. Is it causal, that is, supplying the reason why the Lord was silent, as in Swete's translation: 'He held his peace, as in no wise suffering pain'? Is the latter is correct the author would not have intended to suggest that Jesus was free from pain. Similar statements from later Christian writers suggest that there is more at issue than simple docetism. Apparently, one could speculate about the nature of Jesus' suffering without being 'docetic'.

[R]eports of early Christian martyrdoms regularly feature exactly the same elements: silence, insensitivity to pain, and an imitation of the death of Jesus... Polycarp, when taken to trial, bruised his shin, but continued on his way 'as if nothing had happened to him'. Secondly, Blandina, who during her martyrdom was tossed about by a bull, had no more feeling for what happened to her'.

Head also takes the view that when the Gospel of Peter says that Christ was "taken up" while being crucified, the text probably means that Jesus died (eg. "yielded up His spirit" as Matthew 27:50 says):

Does this refer to an ascent to heaven from the cross? Or could this term simply mean 'he died'? The difficulty is compounded because in its various forms analambano seems to be capable of referring to either death or ascension. In the NT the verb often refers to Jesus' ascension (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:11,22; 1 Tim 3:16), but in each case it is defined as such by an additional prepositional phrase which indicates this unambiously. Both Philo and Hermas use the term in contexts connected with both death and ascension. Of course, the traditions that faithful men ascended into heaven rather than undergo death is a complicating factor. Later evidence provides clear evidence of the meaning 'to die'. During the second century there appears to have been some confusion of terminology (which may be reflected in GP). Justin speaks of some Christians who were saying that there is no resurrection from the dead, but as soon as they die their souls are taken up to heaven (Dial. 80.4). Here the term can only mean 'ascension'. The connection between death and the ascension to heaven was too close, according to Justin. Irenaeus refers to heretics who believed in an ascension immediately at death (Adv. Haer. V.31.1). This, he says, would involve the untenable view that Jesus 'immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body on the earth.'

Timothy Henderson in his dissertation, "'The People Believe That He Has Risen from the Dead': The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics" argues that the earthquake in Chapter 6, v.21 suggests that the text is not Docetic. Verse 19 had said that the crucified Lord called out and was "taken up", and then verse 21 says:
"And then they pulled out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him upon the earth. And all the earth quaked and there was great fear."
Henderson writes:

That Jesus’ body triggers the earthquake indicates its power, a characteristic that does not support a docetic reading of GP. In recent decades, the scholarly tide has turned away from the earlier consensus that GP is docetic, a view that can be traced to Serapion in the second century and that was subsequently followed by nearly all scholars in the immediate wake of GP’s rediscovery at the end of the 19th century. Many have noted the import of GP 6:21 for a non-docetic reading of this gospel; see McCant, “Docetism Reconsidered,” 258-73; Head, “Christology of the Gospel of Peter,” 209-24.

rakovsky · Jul 27, 2019

The main reason that I see for thinking that it is Docetic is Bishop Serapion's report that those who used it were "the successors of those who were its authors whom we call Docetae" (per M.R. James' translation). Since Bp. Serapion was living in the late 2nd century, he was close enough in time to have a good idea of the community out of which it arose. Even supposing that it was written by Peter, it would have been written in the mid-first century, about 140 years before Serapion's letter about it. This is still a reasonable period of time for Bp. Serapion to have a real idea of the community that authored it, besides Bp. Serapion's apparent statement below that in order to check it, he got the document himself from the Docetists' successors.

Here are two translations of Bp. Serapion's characterization of the text:

M. R. James' translation
For we have been enabled to borrow this very Gospel from others who used it, namely, the successors of those who were its authors (lit. began it) whom we call Docetae (Seemers)—for most of their notions belong to that school—and to go through it, and to find that most of it is of the right teaching (word) of the Saviour, but some things are adventitious; a list of which we have drawn up for you.

Ben Smith's translation on the Text Excavation site:
But we, brethren, taking in of what kind of heresy Marcianus was, who also contradicted himself, not thinking about what he was saying, which things you will learn from the things that I have written to you, were enabled by others who studied this same gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we called docetics, for most of the thoughts are of their teaching, using [material] from them to go through and find that most things are of the right word of the savior, but some things are spurious, which things we order out for you.

But on the other hand, there is nothing definitely Docetic in the part about the Passion and Resurrection that came down to us in the Akhmim fragment. In fact, it looks implicitly non-Docetic, because it still refers to the deceased Christ's body on the cross as "the Lord".

Further, the idea that the Akhmim Fragment describes Christ performing The Ascension at his crucifixion is contradicted by the description later in the text of Christ being carried out of the tomb by two angels during His resurrection. So either the reference to Christ being "taken up" on the cross refers to how Christ "yielded up His spirit" as Matthew 27:50 says, or else it expresses an idea whereby Christ performed multiple Ascensions.

hedrick · Jul 27, 2019

The sections you pointed to don't look inherently docetic. But without having the whole thing I don't see how we could really make a judgement.

rakovsky · Jul 27, 2019

I know. It feels like you can trust Bp. Serapion, but that it's hard to tell for sure.
Thanks for writing.

Mathetes66 · Jul 28, 2019

As you can see, a number of the early church fathers were contradictory in their reporting. And much of the issues surrounding this spurious supposed 'other' gospel of Peter are speculative at best. It has been shown to be a counterfeit based on its teachings being contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.

"And, they went & found the tomb opened & coming near they looked in there & they see there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful & clothed in a robe exceeding bright; who said to them, Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? HE IS RISEN AND GONE.

But if ye believe not, look in & see the place where he lay, that he is not [here] ; for HE IS RISEN & GONE THITHER, (FROM) WHENCE HE WAS SENT. Then the women feared & fled.

14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF THE LORD, wept & were grieved & each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and An- drew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom
the Lord..."

This counterfeit gospel shows it says the resurrection & the ascension were done at the same time & that it mentions all 12 disciples being alive, showing nothing of Judas Iscariot, killing himself. This is again pure speculation, but by combining the resurrection & the ascension together as one event, it cuts out all the proofs of the bodily resurrection for 40 days & being seen by over 500 witnesses.

But I would agree with you, that usually, the report closer to the actual time frame of when it happened is the more accurate.

Here might be a couple things to look at if you have time.

Docetism - Bible Study - BibleWise

Heresies Confronted By The Early Church

What is Docetism?

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/docetism

rakovsky · Jul 29, 2019

Mathetes66 said:
As you can see, a number of the early church fathers were contradictory in their reporting. And much of the issues surrounding this spurious supposed 'other' gospel of Peter are speculative at best. It has been shown to be a counterfeit based on its teachings being contradictory to the Holy Scriptures.

"And, they went & found the tomb opened & coming near they looked in there & they see there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful & clothed in a robe exceeding bright; who said to them, Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? HE IS RISEN AND GONE.

But if ye believe not, look in & see the place where he lay, that he is not [here] ; for HE IS RISEN & GONE THITHER, (FROM) WHENCE HE WAS SENT. Then the women feared & fled.

14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF THE LORD, wept & were grieved & each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and An- drew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom
the Lord..."

This counterfeit gospel shows it says the resurrection & the ascension were done at the same time & that it mentions all 12 disciples being alive, showing nothing of Judas Iscariot, killing himself. This is again pure speculation, but by combining the resurrection & the ascension together as one event, it cuts out all the proofs of the bodily resurrection for 40 days & being seen by over 500 witnesses.

But I would agree with you, that usually, the report closer to the actual time frame of when it happened is the more accurate.

Here might be a couple things to look at if you have time.

Mathetes,
Thanks for your comments. I checked out the links you gave. Let me address an issue that you brought up when you said: "This counterfeit gospel shows it says the resurrection & the ascension were done at the same time".

The text says that he was taken up, whereas Matthew writes that Christ yielded up his spirit. The term taken up in the New Testament typically refers to Ascension, even though in those cases it is followed by a preposition (as in taken up to heaven), whereas there is no such preposition in the Gospel of Peter. But consider the fact that after it says He was taken up, the document talks about how He was taken out of the tomb by two angels. So if He had an Ascension on the cross, then you have to infer that He had multiple Ascensions.

If you consider the concept of multiple Ascensions and look back in the New Testament, you might find that multiple Ascensions are a concept possible there too. Paul knew someone who went up to the Third Heaven, and the author of Revelation, John, described himself making an ascension in his vision. When the women go to the tomb, Christ says that He is Ascending to His father, then in Luke 24 and the long version of Mark 16 (verse 19) after talking to the Disciples in His first resurrection appearance it ends the account by saying that He ascended. So this brings to my mind the possible concept of multiple Ascensions, not just in the Gospel of Peter, but also in the Bible.

Mathetes66 · Jul 29, 2019

The ascension in Scripture refers to Christ having ONE ascension not more than one. Because He then says He will return again a second time, not return 3 or more times. Just one more time.

And I quoted directly from the--and I repeat--spurious, proven to be false gospel of Peter to erase any doubt about what is meant there:

"Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? HE IS RISEN AND GONE. But if ye believe not, look in & see the place where he lay, that he is not [here] ; for HE IS RISEN & GONE THITHER, (FROM) WHENCE HE WAS SENT. Then the women feared & fled."

It does not say 'taken up' in this counterfeit gospel but 'He is risen AND GONE.' It further emphasizes this by saying a second time: He is risen & gone thither (to that place) from where He was sent.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. It plainly states Jesus rose & left this earth, returning to heaven from where He first came. All this happened at the same time: both the resurrection & the ascension WHEN the women came to the tomb! It plainly states it & it is plainly wrong! It is contrary to Holy Scripture & is to be rejected as false. There are many such examples of these errors in it & that is why it is rejected & not Scriptural.

And when Jesus talks about HIS ASCENSION, it is never in the plural! He stated numerous times, He came down to earth & then He was going to ascend once, back to His Father, until He returned once again to the earth, to judge the earth & establish His millenial reign.

My encouragement to you is to leave these false teachings & spend your time studying the Holy Scriptures, which are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction & for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished & complete.

One also needs an understanding, as shown in the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus is both man and God. If one understands Jesus as a man, then you can see from Scripture, that Jesus as a man had a human spirit, a human body & a human soul. When Christ died on the cross, his spirit left His body & was committed to the Father, going to Him. Jesus now lifeless body was put in a tomb. Jesus soul went to Sheol/Hades in the compartment called Paradise or Abraham's bosom or Gan Eden or the Abode of Bliss as the Jews called it.

All at the same time, for three days this was true.

Ecclesiastes 12:6,7 Remember Him before the silver cord is snapped & the golden bowl is crushed, before the pitcher is shattered at the spring & the wheel is broken at the well, before the dust returns to the ground from which it came & the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Luke 23:46 Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." And when He had said this, He breathed His last.

Acts 7:59 While they were stoning him, Stephen appealed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Numbers 27:16 "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation.

Psalm 146:4 When his spirit departs, he returns to the ground; on that very day his plans perish.

At the same time the spirit departs upon experiencing physical death, the soul also departs from the lifeless physical body, which is left on the earth to return to dust. The soul then went to Sheol (OT people) & in the NT, it is called Hades (same place). When Jesus physically died, His soul departed the lifeless body & went to there.

Psalm 16:10 NLT For you will not leave my soul (among the dead) in Sheol or allow your Holy One to rot in the grave (see corruption).

Acts 2:24-32 But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches. David says about Him: ‘I saw the Lord always before me; because He is at My right hand,
I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad & my tongue rejoices; My body also will dwell in hope, because You will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.

Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

Christ's body also did not decay. On the third day, Jesus rose out from among the dead in Hades. His soul returned to His now physically resurrected, incorruptible body, as well as His spirit. For 40 days He showed Himself to His followers. They examined His physically resurrected body, saw the scars of the nail prints & the spear wound in His side.

Luke 24:36-43 While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them & said, “Peace be with you.” But they were startled & frightened, THINKING THEY HAD SEEN A SPIRIT.

38“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “& why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at My hands & My feet. IT IS I MYSELF. Touch Me & see—FOR A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH & BONES, AS YOU SEE THAT I HAVE.” 40And when He had said this, He SHOWED THEM His hands & feet.

41While they were still in disbelief because of their joy & amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish & He took it & ate it in front of them.

John 20:24-29 Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks IN HIS HANDS & put my finger where the nails have been & put my hand into His side, I will NOT BELIEVE.”

26Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked & Thomas was with them. Jesus came & stood among them & said, “Peace be with you.” Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here & look at My hands. Reach out your hand & put it into My side. Stop DISBELIEVING & BELIEVE.”

28And Thomas answered & said to Him, “My Lord & my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen & yet have believed.”

I John 1:1-4 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have SEEN with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon & TOUCHED WITH OUR OWN HANDS—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it & testified to it & we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father & was REVEALED to us.

3We proclaim to you what we have SEEN & HEARD, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father & with His Son, Jesus Christ. We write these things so that your joy may be complete.

2 John 1:7-11 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ IN THE FLESH. Any such person is the deceiver & the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, that you may be fully rewarded.

Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father & the Son. If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.

That is the truth of Scripture & exposes the lies of false teachers & false, counterfeit documents, those of docetists & gnostics.

Christ spent 40 days AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, proving He had PHYSICALLY BEEN RESURRECTED BEFORE--ascending to the Father. That is the foundation of Christianity & what we as true believers proclaim: Christ has come in the flesh & rose bodily in the resurrection. Scripture proclaims it. The Creeds confirm it. The Councils explain it. We preach it.

rakovsky · Jul 29, 2019

Thanks for your reply, Mathetes.
Let me address what you said. The concept that a person could have multiple ascensions is suggested to me by 2 Corinthians 12, where Paul writes: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven." If the person was still alive when he ascended, and then years later at his death, or afterwards during the general Resurrection, he ascended again to heaven.

In the canonical Gospels, Christ "yielded up His spirit" on the cross according to Matthew 27:50. Then in Mark 16:7, the angel tells the women that Christ left the tomb, "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.'" In John 20, Jesus tells Mary on her way, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Later in John 21, Peter and other disciples are fishing in Galilee, and see Jesus.

The Gospel of Peter tells these parts of the story rather differently. You can check my quotes here: (www.textexcavation.com/gospelpeter.html) Verse 19 of the Gospel of Peter says that Christ gave last words on the cross "And, having said that, he was taken up." I don't know if this is a crude way of saying that he "yielded up his spirit", but it seems that if taken literally, it could refer to him performing a spiritual ascension. The document describes Christ leaving the tomb, and (as you cited) an angel telling the women, "For he rose and went away there, whence he was sent." If you line this passage up with Mark 16 and John 20, then the angel is talking about Christ going to Galilee, from where God sent Him on His mission to Jerusalem and about going away to His future Ascension. Next, the Gospel of Peter describes Peter and other disciples going to Galilee and fishing, at which point the text breaks off. Scholars generally consider this to refer to a seaside appearance to Peter like in John 21.

dzheremi · Jul 29, 2019

This, like all of your other "GOSPEL OF X" threads, doesn't not belong here on the Oriental Orthodox forum. These writings have no standing in the Oriental Orthodox Church, and are not connected to it just because they may have been found in Egypt, or cited in St. Clement of Alexandria, or whatever the reasoning is in any particular thread. Please stop making and bumping threads like this in the Oriental Orthodox forum.

I have alerted staff as to these threads in hopes that they can be moved en masse (this one and all the other ones). They're not bad questions and are actually quite informative as threads, but they really don't belong on this specific forum.

Joy · Jul 31, 2019

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

Thread is Now
Permanently Closed
Re: SoP Violation

Statement of Purpose - The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox Statement of Faith

House Rules-
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

MOD HAT OFF

THE GOSPEL OF PETER (70-160). Question: Is it Docetic?

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

hedrick

Senior Veteran

More options

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

Mathetes66

Well-Known Member

More options

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

Mathetes66

Well-Known Member

More options

rakovsky

Newbie

More options

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

More options

Joy

John 3:16

More options

Similar threads

THE GOSPEL OF PETER (70-160). Question: Is it Docetic?

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

John 3:16

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency