Millennium Rule: the Immortal with the Mortal

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Millennium of Christ includes the Lord and His resurrected saints on earth ruling them of the nations.

The Lord will roar out of Zion, the Prince will sit with glory in His house in Jerusalem, the nations will keep His feast of tabernacles yearly, and the nations will come to hear His law, so as to walk in His paths.

All the prophecies of the Lord coming, is to earth Himself to judge and rule the earth Himself, no longer from heaven only.

Some of those believing in His Millennium have trouble with immortal saints ruling among naturally mortal people. The problem is that changing the details of Millennial prophecy, changes His Millennium into another kind of millennium of men.

1. Not being able to 'imagine' something prophesied in Scripture, is not a valid argument about anything.

2. The Lord walked and ate among His disciples for 40 days on earth, in appearance just like any man, though with His resurrected immortal body.

He can do the same for however long He wishes, and He can have His resurrected saints with Him.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

That is how the saints will have bodily resurrection in His likeness: the manner and power of His resurrected body, will be the same for the saints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ewq1938

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Some teach the resurrected body is not the glorified immortal body, until ascending into heaven.

And so they say Jesus was not in His glorified immortal body, during His stay among His disciples on earth, but only in His resurrected body.

And so, while He was certainly walking among His disciples on earth, as the Scriptures say, it was only in a resurrected body not yet made immortal in heaven. And now that He is both resurrected and made gloriously immortal in heaven, He cannot then live among mortal people on earth, because they don't believe that is possible.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The resurrection of the dead body and changing to immortal body, are at the same moment.

Jesus did not walk around on earth talking and eating with a resurrected body, that was not yet made immortal, until ascending to the Father.

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Once again, being resurrected bodily, is with immortality of the body, at the same time, not later.

No one could kill Jesus again after being resurrected from the dead, and walking on earth with His disciples, because His body was gloriously immortal.

He can also walk and eat among natural men, without any apparent difference between them.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Millennium of Christ includes the Lord and His resurrected saints on earth ruling them of the nations.

The Lord will roar out of Zion, the Prince will sit with glory in His house in Jerusalem, the nations will keep His feast of tabernacles yearly, and the nations will come to hear His law, so as to walk in His paths.

All the prophecies of the Lord coming, is to earth Himself to judge and rule the earth Himself, no longer from heaven only.

Some of those believing in His Millennium have trouble with immortal saints ruling among naturally mortal people. The problem is that changing the details of Millennial prophecy, changes His Millennium into another kind of millennium of men.

1. Not being able to 'imagine' something prophesied in Scripture, is not a valid argument about anything.

2. The Lord walked and ate among His disciples for 40 days on earth, in appearance just like any man, though with His resurrected immortal body.

He can do the same for however long He wishes, and He can have His resurrected saints with Him.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

That is how the saints will have bodily resurrection in His likeness: the manner and power of His resurrected body, will be the same for the saints.

Does Scripture matter to you or are you going to keep posting what you have been taught? Where is your Scripture that teaches mortals and immortals will exist and interact in some future millennium?

You start threads like this and fail to support all your theories with hard Scripture. This is your MO. When your claims are soundly refuted then you quickly abandon the threads. Observers can pick a thread and see the evidence of this.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Some teach the resurrected body is not the glorified immortal body, until ascending into heaven.

And so they say Jesus was not in His glorified immortal body, during His stay among His disciples on earth, but only in His resurrected body.

And so, while He was certainly walking among His disciples on earth, as the Scriptures say, it was only in a resurrected body not yet made immortal in heaven. And now that He is both resurrected and made gloriously immortal in heaven, He cannot then live among mortal people on earth, because they don't believe that is possible.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


The resurrection of the dead body and changing to immortal body, are at the same moment.

Jesus did not walk around on earth talking and eating with a resurrected body, that was not yet made immortal, until ascending to the Father.

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.


Once again, being resurrected bodily, is with immortality of the body, at the same time, not later.

No one could kill Jesus again after being resurrected from the dead, and walking on earth with His disciples, because His body was gloriously immortal.

He can also walk and eat among natural men, without any apparent difference between them.
Resurrection from the dead and Immortalization are obviously not the same thing in all contexts, and I don't think you're saying this? It is only the resurrection unto Eternal Life that produces immortal bodies, right? Clearly, Lazarus was raised from the dead in his old body, and did not become an immortal!

But yes, In the Scriptures our resurrection from the dead as saints at the 2nd Coming is presented as Immortalization, which is much more than coming back to life and existing eternally. It is being equipped with the reward of the saints, including a new body fit to dwell in God's presence, carrying His virtues, forever.

We both believe in the Millennial Age, but I'm not sure glorified, immortal Christians, who have taken part in the resurrection, will dwell there until that time period ends. I do, I admit, have a problem with seeing immortals and mortals co-dwelling on the same earth.

When I see in Scriptures it being said that the saints return with Christ to earth, I see it as the saints establishing, together with Christ, his Kingdom on the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean that the saints will stay here, once the Kingdom has been established. We are told that we will become like the "angels of heaven," who are here at times, and at other times are not here.

Luke 20.36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

I see evidence that the saints are here on earth ruling as mortals, rather than as immortals. Every indication of the Messianic Kingdom in the OT Prophets indicates the saints are mortals, as far as I can tell? This would imply that the immortal saints are retained in heaven until mortal humanity enters into its 2nd resurrection, or banishment into Outer Darkness, depending on God's judgment. The New Jerusalem appears to descend from heaven at the end of the Millennial Age.

Rev 21.1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Again, I don't really know the answer to this one. These are just my own thoughts. Questions about Amil or Premil are similar--they are a bit sketchy. At some point, after reading for years and years we do come up with our opinions. ;) I try to remain a "listener," as much as possible.

I will add this, that the essentials of the Christian faith consist of the need to embrace putting on the virtues of Christ, which is eternal righteousness, or Eternal Life. All other truth in Scripture is valuable, but not necessarily essential. I try to treat these things as such.
 
Last edited:

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
An argument of the resurrected body on earth, not being the immortal body until ascended to heaven, comes from the meeting of the resurrected Christ with the first one on earth to acknowledge Him as Master, and witness of His resurrection to others: Mary Magdalene.

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

It is therefore true, that none could touch His resurrected immortal body, until He ascended to the Father; which only says it has to do with not touching Him, not with any doctrine of a resurrected body on earth, not yet being made immortal in heaven.

And since He later certainly told Thomas to not only touch Him, but also put his hand in the wound still seen in His side, then any argument about touching Him, having to do with a resurrected vs immortal body, is mute.

Some respond further, to try and change the Scriptural translation to 'clinging' to Him, and not just 'touching' Him. Therefore, His resurrected body, not yet made immortal, could be touched without being clung to.

And so Thomas, like Mary, could touch Him, just not cling to Him.

However, since Jesus told Thomas to put his hand in the wound still in His side, then now the argument becomes whether that is clinging or not. Finally, the argument becomes absurd to the point of whether his hand gets stuck in His side, and so is now clinging by accident.

But simple context of Scripture shows no hint of Mary touching Jesus at all, much less hugging Him, or clinging to His feet in worship.

They were at a distance, when the chaste maid turned to see a strange man in the garden. Jesus did not sneak up on her as a stranger. She also must have turned away from the man back to the tomb, after asking where His body was. So she was remaining in place when turning back again to recognize Him, after He called Her name.

No doubt she was about to approach Him in gladness, but that is when He stopped here from touching His resurrected immortal body, that could not be seen as any different from any other man.

He said He was going to ascend to our God and Father, and told her to tell that to His brethren that. And so He did ascend to the father at that time, before appearing to His disciples once again in a recognized immortal body, with which He could speak and eat with them, and be touched, just not harmed.

He and all His first resurrected saints will do so in immortal bodies, with power to rule for a thousand years.

They can be touched, but not harmed.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
An argument of the resurrected body on earth, not being the immortal body until ascended to heaven, comes from the meeting of the resurrected Christ with the first one on earth to acknowledge Him as Master, and witness of His resurrection to others: Mary Magdalene.

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.


Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

It is therefore true, that none could touch His resurrected immortal body, until He ascended to the Father; which only says it has to do with not touching Him, not with any doctrine of a resurrected body on earth, not yet being made immortal in heaven.

And since He later certainly told Thomas to not only touch Him, but also put his hand in the wound still seen in His side, then any argument about touching Him, having to do with a resurrected vs immortal body, is mute.
That's true only if you're right that "touching him" has to do with literally "touching him." The argument is made that there can be only one simple meaning to "touching him."

But in language, words are more complicated than this. Therefore, I often say that words "mean what they mean in context." I've got this saying from those much more learned than me, who are skilled in language studies. It is not a matter of rationalization, but rather, a matter of proper understanding of what is being saying.

I may say, "Don't touch me," and then indicate that someone who is approaching me to embrace me is really not cognizant of my need to keep moving, until a particular job is finished. It is *context* that determines what "touching me" means.

So, the argument boils down to what the context is saying. And we may or may not agree that the context is somewhat debatable?
Some respond further, to try and change the Scriptural translation to 'clinging' to Him, and not just 'touching' Him. Therefore, His resurrected body, not yet made immortal, could be touched without being clung to.

And so Thomas, like Mary, could touch Him, just not cling to Him.

However, since Jesus told Thomas to put his hand in the wound still in His side, then now the argument becomes whether that is clinging or not. Finally, the argument becomes absurd to the point of whether his hand gets stuck in His side, and so is now clinging by accident.
Well, this isn't really the argument, that "touching him" in all circumstances means "clinging to." Context for Mary "touching him" may be different than the context for Thomas "touching him." In fact, that would be my own argument. Mary was "clinging" to Jesus, not recognizing that he had more to do in his mission. Thomas simply didn't believe Jesus could rise from the dead after his crucifixion.
He said He was going to ascend to our God and Father, and told her to tell that to His brethren that. And so He did ascend to the father at that time, before appearing to His disciples once again in a recognized immortal body, with which He could speak and eat with them, and be touched, just not harmed.
I don't see Jesus ascending to the Father *at that time* because the ascension is described later in Acts 1 and Luke 24. Luke 24, in particular, provides a timeline that places Jesus' ascension after showing himself resurrected to his Disciples. After the Acts 1 event, Jesus is never described as coming back to show himself alive to his Disciples.
 

Keraz

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2018
5,053
919
113
82
Thames, New Zealand
www.logostelos.info
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
He and all His first resurrected saints will do so in immortal bodies, with power to rule for a thousand years.
This is not correct and does not conform to what the Prophets say.
However,; to believe it is not a serious matter. People look forward to all sorts of things that are impossible.

I see evidence that the saints are here on earth ruling as mortals, rather than as immortals. Every indication of the Messianic Kingdom in the OT Prophets indicates the saints are mortals, as far as I can tell? This would imply that the immortal saints are retained in heaven until mortal humanity enters into its 2nd resurrection, or banishment into Outer Darkness, depending on God's judgment. The New Jerusalem appears to descend from heaven at the end of the Millennial Age.
Randyk verbal ramblings.

There is no such evidence. People can only receive immortality when the Book of Life is opened. Rev 20:11-15
Isaiah 65:20 proves there is still death during the Millennium.
The New Jerusalem is plainly stated to come after the Millennium.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,625
2,340
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is not correct and does not conform to what the Prophets say.
However,; to believe it is not a serious matter. People look forward to all sorts of things that are impossible.


Randyk verbal ramblings.

There is no such evidence. People can only receive immortality when the Book of Life is opened. Rev 20:11-15
Isaiah 65:20 proves there is still death during the Millennium.
The New Jerusalem is plainly stated to come after the Millennium.
Well, I certainly wouldn't disagree with some of this. Yes, people are still mortal during the Millennium. I have said that I believed that. And I do believe in a literal Millennial Age, as I've said many times.

Neither do I disagree that people receive immortality when the Book of Life is opened. I just believe that it is opened more than once, just like there is more than one resurrection to immortality. Rev 20 implies that there will be two, and not just one, resurrections. So, apparently there is some agreement?
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Resurrection from the dead and Immortalization are obviously not the same thing in all contexts, and I don't think you're saying this? It is only the resurrection unto Eternal Life that produces immortal bodies, right? Clearly, Lazarus was raised from the dead in his old body, and did not become an immortal!
The Scriptures I provided show both the resurrection of Jesus and the saints, is with immortal bodies at the same time, so that they cannot die again.

Lazarus and the man touching the bones of the prophet, lived again with mortal bodies.

Therefore, bodily resurrection with immortality, and being raised from the dead to die again, are not the same thing.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We both believe in the Millennial Age, but I'm not sure glorified, immortal Christians, who have taken part in the resurrection, will dwell there until that time period ends. I do, I admit, have a problem with seeing immortals and mortals co-dwelling on the same earth.When I see in Scriptures it being said that the saints return with Christ to earth, I see it as the saints establishing, together with Christ, his Kingdom on the earth. That doesn't necessarily mean that the saints will stay here, once the Kingdom has been established.
So, the main issue is immortal saints co-dwelling with mortal saints and sinners on earth.

The dispute is not about the Lord and His resurrected saints standing on earth, but about how long, or even how often.

The arguments I have given, with the objections addressed, convince me they certainly can co-dwell as much as God desires, whether for 40 days or for a thousand years and 40 days.

However, whether they do so or not is open, since I don't see any Scripture, at this time, proving it one way or the other.

Although, I see the prophecies of the yearly tabernacle, and people coming to the Lord to hear His law, certainly show He will be there at times throughout the thousand years, and apparently more time on earth than not.

Afterall, it will only be but as a day for them.

We are told that we will become like the "angels of heaven," who are here at times, and at other times are not here.

Now this is a good point to bring in, and may reveal the answer to a mysterious prophecy in John 1:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

At this time, I would say this is clearly during His Millennium. And since the angels of God can ascend and descend upon the King's Jerusalem on earth, then so can the resurrected sons of God.

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

They who ascend from the earth in the resurrection, and descend to the earth with the Lord's coming again, can ascend and descend again and again, as with the angels of God.

The point is that all will be made known in plain sight of all men, without anymore mysteries, false religions, warfare, and wicked rule. And the devil will be shut up, from arguing against what people plainly see with their own eyes, on earth and in the air.
I see evidence that the saints are here on earth ruling as mortals, rather than as immortals. Every indication of the Messianic Kingdom in the OT Prophets indicates the saints are mortals, as far as I can tell?
This is less evident, but certainly possible, and Rev 2 may show it.

There will be many saved mortal saints on earth during His reign, even more than today.

But the saints ruling with Him at the beginning, are certainly those first resurrected in His likeness:

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

However, with your point, Scripture appears to make room for the saved saints on earth, to also begin ruling in their stead, while the resurrected saints ascend and descend with the angels, at the will of God.

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Those overcoming sin in Christ now, certainly do have the rule of Christ over our lives, and are ambassadors in Christ's stead today. And so the same can be said of them overcoming sinning during His Millennium on earth.

They will be dwelling on earth at all times, like every other natural man, but may well be ruling in the resurrected saints' stead.



This would imply that the immortal saints are retained in heaven until mortal humanity enters into its 2nd resurrection,
By the arguments above, due to your observations, I would say ascending and descending throughout the thousand years, according to the will of God.

Thanks.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Questions about Amil or Premil are similar--they are a bit sketchy.
Ours are similar and can be worked out. But there is no semblance between believers in Christ's Millennium, and the unbelievers.

The unbelievers reject all of it as nothing but symbol, and make it only a myth fooling many thousands of years of old and new Testament saints, looking for the Lord in Person, reigning on earth over all nations.

Their prophecy of the Lord's coming again to earth, is exactly what the unbelieving Jews demanded of their Messiah the first time, which is why they rejected Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

They were looking for the God of Israel to come down in fiery flame and power, to destroy all people not circumcised and living like them. It's the same mind and spirit, that look for the coming again of the risen God of Israel to do the same for them.

John was rebuked for having that manner of spirit, that looked only for punishment from the Lord, and not salvation.

The only christ coming to this earth in future, with fire coming down from heaven in sight of men, is the last great false christ on earth.


At some point, after reading for years and years we do come up with our opinions. ;) I try to remain a "listener," as much as possible.

You are a good one, because you do address the points of others, even if you don't agree at the time. That is why there can be adjustment and correction between us.

There are those that don't care one bit for what others have to say, but are only interested in proselytizing all others, to their own little ideas.
I will add this, that the essentials of the Christian faith consist of the need to embrace putting on the virtues of Christ, which is eternal righteousness, or Eternal Life. All other truth in Scripture is valuable, but not necessarily essential. I try to treat these things as such.
Completely true.

And until I say from certain 'amils', that their goal is simple to add more Christians to their 'amil' camp, I never understood why they were so hostile to them that disagree.

Also, with the matter of relevance to salvation and justification of Christ, why would any Christian be so entrenched in the dispute of the Millennium, that they call themselves ay kind of 'mil'? I may be a Millennialist believer, but I don't call myself a 'mil' of any sort.

Who wants to go around calling themselves 'amils'? Much less taking some zealous pride in proselytizing others into their 'amil camp'?

An amil sounds like a little pill to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Kluth

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I may say, "Don't touch me," and then indicate that someone who is approaching me to embrace me is really not cognizant of my need to keep moving, until a particular job is finished.
This is new and interesting, but speculative without Scriptural proof. I just stick with the Scripture saying Jesus's resurrected immortal body should not be touched, until ascending to the Father.

He then proceeded to tell Mary, He is going to do just that, and told her to tell the disciples of it.

Since they could touch Him later, it shows He did just as He said He was going to do: Ascend to our God and Father.
So, the argument boils down to what the context is saying. And we may or may not agree that the context is somewhat debatable?

True. But so far I am convinced enough by context, that Mary only saw Him first as a stranger at a distance, and he forbid her coming closer to touch Him.


Well, this isn't really the argument, that "touching him" in all circumstances means "clinging to."
Haplo means three things: to touch, to hold to, to make sense of.

Scripture uses all three ways. Examples of simple touching only, is when Jesus touches and heals:

And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

Or when others touch Him and are healed:

And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

I would say, there may be found here a reason, for not touching His resurrected immortal body, before ascending to our God and our Father.
Context for Mary "touching him" may be different than the context for Thomas "touching him."
True. With Mary He said touch me not, and with the disciples He said touch me.


In fact, that would be my own argument. Mary was "clinging" to Jesus, not recognizing that he had more to do in his mission.
True. You have a speculation following a conclusion you like.

And we of course disagree on your conclusion, and I see no Scripture so far proving the speculation.

Thomas simply didn't believe Jesus could rise from the dead after his crucifixion.
True. So Jesus told him to touch Him, and be not faithless but believing.

I don't see Jesus ascending to the Father *at that time* because the ascension is described later in Acts 1 and Luke 24.
Which we see now, is only traditionally His first one.

He said he was going to do so, and told Mary to tell His disciples, He was going to do so.

Added to that, is He later appears and tells His disciples to now touch Him.

It's enough for me to now reject the tradition, that His ascension in the cloud, was His only one. In Scripture it is the only one seen by others.

It's the same with how many times Peter denied Jesus. The tradition is three times only, but Scripture can show he did so as many a 5 times.




Luke 24, in particular, provides a timeline that places Jesus' ascension after showing himself resurrected to his Disciples. After the Acts 1 event, Jesus is never described as coming back to show himself alive to his Disciples.
Except on Patmos.

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And to Paul:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.


A better way to say it is, no Scripture speaks of Jesus coming again to appear in site of man, after His ascension with a cloud, with His mortal body, that appears just like ours.

That does not happen again in Scripture, until he appears again on earth to rule the nations.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is new and interesting, but speculative without Scriptural proof. I just stick with the Scripture saying Jesus's resurrected immortal body should not be touched, until ascending to the Father.

He then proceeded to tell Mary, He is going to do just that, and told her to tell the disciples of it.

Since they could touch Him later, it shows He did just as He said He was going to do: Ascend to our God and Father.


True. But so far I am convinced enough by context, that Mary only saw Him first as a stranger at a distance, and he forbid her coming closer to touch Him.



Haplo means three things: to touch, to hold to, to make sense of.

Scripture uses all three ways. Examples of simple touching only, is when Jesus touches and heals:

And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

Or when others touch Him and are healed:

And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

I would say, there may be found here a reason, for not touching His resurrected immortal body, before ascending to our God and our Father.

True. With Mary He said touch me not, and with the disciples He said touch me.



True. You have a speculation following a conclusion you like.

And we of course disagree on your conclusion, and I see no Scripture so far proving the speculation.


True. So Jesus told him to touch Him, and be not faithless but believing.


Which we see now, is only traditionally His first one.

He said he was going to do so, and told Mary to tell His disciples, He was going to do so.

Added to that, is He later appears and tells His disciples to now touch Him.

It's enough for me to now reject the tradition, that His ascension in the cloud, was His only one. In Scripture it is the only one seen by others.

It's the same with how many times Peter denied Jesus. The tradition is three times only, but Scripture can show he did so as many a 5 times.





Except on Patmos.

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


And to Paul:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

A better way to say it is, no Scripture speaks of Jesus coming again to appear in site of man, after His ascension with a cloud, with His mortal body, that appears just like ours.

That does not happen again in Scripture, until he appears again on earth to rule the nations.

It is amazing how much theology you promote that you are unable to present any Scripture to support. This thread is a case-in-point.
 
Last edited: