The Ascension of Christ

  • 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!

Red_Letters88

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
390
0
0
36
Let me start off with this study, asking for any of you to help me understand this topic even more in depth.The ascension seems like a topic which all the gospels all share in the same manner- although I ran into a rough spot which is hard to understand...Lets Begin in JohnIn John 20 Jesus reveals himself to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection.John 20:17 (NIV)"Jesus said, "Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to my Father..." John 20:17 (KJV) "Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."So- In the NIV we see the word HOLD In the KJV we see the word TOUCHFOLLOWED BY:John 20:27 Doubting Thomas20:27 -(NIV) "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."20:27 -(KJV) Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."So Lets Go Back for a SecondIn verse 17- (NIV) Jesus tells Mary to NOT HOLD onto me. (KJV) Jesus tells Mary TOUCH me not.followed by Verse 27: (NIV)- "Reach out your hand and put it into my side." (KJV)- "Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side." In verse 20:27- Thomas would of had to of TOUCHED Jesus in order to put/thrust his hand into Jesus' side.
It Seems Like Jesus Already Ascended?
Lets Compare the End of Johns Gospel with the Others​
In Matthew: -No account of the discussion between Jesus and Thomas is presented.- Not a very clear discription of Jesus AscensionIn Mark: -This gospel does NOT include Jesus words to Mary Magdalene.- No account of Jesus speaking DIRECTLY to Thomas.In Luke: - In 24:36 we see Jesus talking DIRECTLY to the disciples- but NOT to Thomas individually.- Luke also gives us a much more detailed account of the Ascension of Christ.In John: - Jesus' direct conversation with Mary Magdalene is INCLUDED, as well as the DIRECT words of Jesus to Thomas.- Very little detail on the ascension.-----------------------------------------------------------FINAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS- JOHN not only gives us a more detailed account of: Jesus speaking with Mary Magdalene- but also the words of Jesus for Thomas as well.------So, looking at the words of Jesus to Mary in John 20:17- Jesus instructed her to not touch/hold himTHENJohn 20:27- Jesus TELLS Thomas to touch his side- Thrust his hand into it!----------------------------------If Jesus had not yet ascended to his Father when speaking to Mary- then why did Jesus allow Thomas to touch him- if this is ALSO before the ascension?Is it possible with scripture to say that Jesus ascended after verse 20:17- THEN came back to speak and instruct his disciples AFTER?
 

setfree

New Member
Oct 14, 2007
1,074
1
0
63
I went through this study not to long ago, and came up with the same questions. I hope you have better luck than I did. Seems like the thread went in every direction. You can look at Touch me not! post, but I was not satisfied with most of the answers.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
I may have found part of the answer in the GreekJesus didn't forbid Mary to touch Him, but in the Greek text He said "Touch Me not", should read, "Don't hold Me up". Jesus had to go to the Father then, and we will see later that He allowed everyone to touch Him, and even the women were allowed to hold His feet. Matthew 28:9; "And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "All hail." And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him."Also because all didnt mention it in the same detail is the difference in who is writting it doesnt mean we should give it less weight
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Good question.Most of the ancient commentaries on this verse consider that her attitude towards Him was not correct, that she was happy to see Jesus again, wanted to be in the presence of that "man" and still saw Him as that Man rather than equal to God. So in clarifying who He is (going to sit next to -right hand -ie same level-equal to the Father) it is a little bit of a kind admonition that she was not approaching Him in the correct manner.
 

Alanforchrist

Member
Dec 25, 2007
502
9
18
74
(Red_Letters88;39911)
Let me start off with this study, asking for any of you to help me understand this topic even more in depth.The ascension seems like a topic which all the gospels all share in the same manner- although I ran into a rough spot which is hard to understand...Lets Begin in JohnIn John 20 Jesus reveals himself to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection.John 20:17 (NIV)"Jesus said, "Do not hold onto me, for I have not yet returned to my Father..." John 20:17 (KJV) "Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."So- In the NIV we see the word HOLD In the KJV we see the word TOUCHFOLLOWED BY:John 20:27 Doubting Thomas20:27 -(NIV) "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."20:27 -(KJV) Then saith he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."So Lets Go Back for a SecondIn verse 17- (NIV) Jesus tells Mary to NOT HOLD onto me. (KJV) Jesus tells Mary TOUCH me not.followed by Verse 27: (NIV)- "Reach out your hand and put it into my side." (KJV)- "Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side." In verse 20:27- Thomas would of had to of TOUCHED Jesus in order to put/thrust his hand into Jesus' side.
It Seems Like Jesus Already Ascended?
Lets Compare the End of Johns Gospel with the Others​
In Matthew: -No account of the discussion between Jesus and Thomas is presented.- Not a very clear discription of Jesus AscensionIn Mark: -This gospel does NOT include Jesus words to Mary Magdalene.- No account of Jesus speaking DIRECTLY to Thomas.In Luke: - In 24:36 we see Jesus talking DIRECTLY to the disciples- but NOT to Thomas individually.- Luke also gives us a much more detailed account of the Ascension of Christ.In John: - Jesus' direct conversation with Mary Magdalene is INCLUDED, as well as the DIRECT words of Jesus to Thomas.- Very little detail on the ascension.-----------------------------------------------------------FINAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS- JOHN not only gives us a more detailed account of: Jesus speaking with Mary Magdalene- but also the words of Jesus for Thomas as well.------So, looking at the words of Jesus to Mary in John 20:17- Jesus instructed her to not touch/hold himTHENJohn 20:27- Jesus TELLS Thomas to touch his side- Thrust his hand into it!----------------------------------If Jesus had not yet ascended to his Father when speaking to Mary- then why did Jesus allow Thomas to touch him- if this is ALSO before the ascension?Is it possible with scripture to say that Jesus ascended after verse 20:17- THEN came back to speak and instruct his disciples AFTER?
That is right, when Jesus spoke to Mary, it was early John 20: 1, and in v 17, Jesus said, I am not yet ascended to My Father, Then He said, Tell My brethren, I ascend [now] to My Father. The tense here is "Now".Now look at v 19, Please note, "It was now the evening". This was quite some time after meeting Mary.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(DrBubbaLove;39982)
BTW, the Ascension of Our Lord does not occur for another 40 days.
Thats not possable he had to ascend to the father then return if as Alan pointed out the Word "Now" is the tensehis reply to Marry would imply he was in a hurry and if he hadnt then your above statement makes no sense as the others would have thought the same thing
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Hey it made sense for 1500 years and it made sense to people that spoke to those who wrote these words. That is good enough for me. Why stop for just one visit only to immediately return?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Well I call it knowledge has increased but you are making a contradiction hereone one hand he tells Mary do not slow me down I Now must asend to my fatherThen he hangs around 40 days that doesnt even make sense.
 

Red_Letters88

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
390
0
0
36
Well, I see I have opened up something quite large. Ive started to read the old "Touch me Not" thread on this same subject.Half of me says- it is as it seems- That he ascended and then came backThe other half says- This doesnt make sense that Christ would be in a hurry- and then return to teach and instruct his disciples. As Kriss mentioned.I always thought it was a one time deal- but now that I look at the difference between the Gospels- I see there is room for confusion.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
This maybe one of those doctrines we will never have a complete answer to until we can ask Christ It may just come down to what one understands in their own heart I don't think we can take the traditional Ideas of men be the guide here, though interesting it proves nothing but their opinion. If we just look at the scripturesWe are told 1) He told Mary Do not hold me back (slow me down)2) I have Not yet returned to my father 3)Time passes to Evening4) he can now be touched by many5) He teaches 40 more days6) He ascends to take his place at the right hand of GodI think the biblical evidence points to the fact that he ascended directly to Godafter telling Mary to not slow him down thus we have a time lapse, This was obviously not witnessed as there are no accounts of it. But then when the story picks up he was touched and seen by many. His ministry as Christ was not yet ended as he taught for 40 more days in his resurrected body. So to me this evidences he was showing us that he had been an acceptable Sacrifice but had not yet taken his legal role at the right hand of God. It is interesting to note here that the number 40 means probation.So I could see that it is perfectly within Biblical character to have 40 Day probation period between being accepted as the perfect sacrifice and taking his seat on the right hand side of God an given complete authority as a member of the Godhead.It also puts me in mind of the Animal sacrifices that were the proto types of Christ as soon as they were burnt the smoke rose to heaven was this a picture of Christ returning directly to God to be deemed an accepted sacrifice before returning to complete is ministry. I dont think we can absoulty prove or disprove this either way
 

Red_Letters88

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
390
0
0
36
Well said, I also thought of an additional peice of information about Christ in his resurrected body- He still had the hunger of a man, yet he walked through walls.Perhaps this is a probation period- To me this doesnt mean that Christ wasnt sufficent nor does it mean he wasnt accepted by the Father- just that things needed to be done during this waiting time.Either way- Our Lord ascended and sits at the right side of the Father!
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
I think thats the only reason he would have returned to God was that God needed to deem him an accepted sacrafice. (Just as the smoke)He had to rise But he had to return to finish his ministeryhe had to complete our teaching before returning to his legal Role if he had not returned for those 40 days no one would believe in the resurected body which we are promised also To be changed in the twinkling of an eye into our incoruptable bodies.But thats only my opinon on what I believe this to be showing usKind of like God saying Yes you have been qualified and accepted for the postion as soon as you finish the job I sent you to do
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Repost by setfreeI know that the Old Testament pictures what the New Testament reveals. When the lamb was sacrificed for the sins in the Old Testament (Jesus dying on the cross). They took the blood and sprinkled it on the Alter. Did this have to take place in heaven before anyone could enter in? Just a thought!
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Kriss,You forgot in the sequence above to list the two disciples walking to Emmaus, which occurs later during the day time. Mary's encounter was that same morning.
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Saint AmbroseBut if you should seek Him amongst earthly beings, even as Mary of Magdala sought Him, take heed lest He say to you, as unto her: "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto My Father." John 20:17 For your gates are narrow—they give me no passage—they cannot be lifted up, and therefore I cannot come in.St AugustineBut where is lying put away, unless inwardly, that he who speaks the truth from his heart may inhabit the holy hill of God? But the resurrection of the body of the Lord is shown to belong to the mystery of our own inner resurrection, where, after He had risen, He says to the woman, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father;" with which mystery the apostle's words agree, where he says, "If you then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God; set your thoughts on things above." For not to touch Christ, unless when He had ascended to the Father, means not to have thoughts of Christ after a fleshly manner. Again, the death of the flesh of our Lord contains a type of the death of our outer man, since it is by such suffering most of all that He exhorts His servants that they should not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Wherefore the apostle says, "That I may fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh." And the resurrection of the body of the Lord is found to contain a type of the resurrection of our outward man, because He says to His disciples, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have." And one of the disciples also, handling His scars, exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" And whereas the entire integrity of that flesh was apparent, this was shown in that which He had said when exhorting His disciples: "There shall not a hair of your head perish." For how comes it that first is said, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father;" and how comes it that before He ascends to the Father, He actually is touched by the disciples: unless because in the former the mystery of the inner man was intimated, in the latter a type was given of the outer man? Or can any one possibly be so without understanding, and so turned away from the truth, as to dare to say that He was touched by men before He ascended, but by women when He had ascended?Saint Augustine"Jesus says 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; to my God, and your God." There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this gardener was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. What then is meant by "Touch me not"? And just as if the reason of such a prohibition would be sought, He added, "for I am not yet ascended to my Father." What does this mean? If, while standing on earth, He is not to be touched, how could He be touched by men when sitting in heaven? For certainly, before He ascended, He presented Himself to the touch of the disciples, when He said, as testified by the evangelist Luke, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have;" Luke 24:39 or when He said to Thomas the disciple, "Reach hither your finger, and behold my hands; and put forth your hand, and thrust it into my side." And who could be so absurd as to affirm that He was willing indeed to be touched by the disciples before He ascended to the Father, but refused it in the case of women till after His ascension? But no one, even had any the will, was to be allowed to run into such folly. For we read that women also, after His resurrection and before His ascension to the Father, touched Jesus, among whom was Mary Magdalene herself; for it is related by Matthew that Jesus met them, and said, "All hail. And they approached, and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him." Matthew 28:9 This was passed over by John, but declared as the truth by Matthew. It remains, therefore, that some sacred mystery must lie concealed in these words; and whether we discover it or utterly fail to do so, yet we ought to be in no doubt as to its actual existence. Accordingly, either the words, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father," had this meaning, that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe in Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father, or that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one. For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, "Touch me not;" that is, Believe not thus on me according to your present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in your behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby you have yourself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? "For I am not yet ascended," He says, "to my Father:" there shall you touch me, when you believe me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. "But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father." He says not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. "And my God, and your God." Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator.Leo the GreatA better instructed faith then began to draw closer to a conception of the Son's equality with the Father without the necessity of handling the corporeal substance in Christ, whereby He is less than the Father, since, while the Nature of the glorified Body still remained the faith of believers was called upon to touch not with the hand of flesh, but with the spiritual understanding the Only-begotten, Who was equal with the Father. Hence comes that which the Lord said after His Resurrection, when Mary Magdalene, representing the Church, hastened to approach and touch Him: "Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to My Father John 20:17 :" that is, I would not have you come to Me as to a human body, nor yet recognize Me by fleshly perceptions: I put you off for higher things, I prepare greater things for you: when I have ascended to My Father, then you shall handle Me more perfectly and truly, for you shall grasp what you can not touch and believe what you can not see.
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Kriss,noticed you closed the other thread before I could respond. While I can see some of the logic of the explanation given, I cannot see all of it or the need for it in understanding this verse. Not when we have an older and much more understandable explanation from tradition that avoids what I see as major issues with what we all (or maybe most of us) agree are attributes of God, Jesus and the Father.We are talking about God, an Infinite Divine Being, all Powerful. Yet in the same breath we say, as if He could have a time issue, Jesus has to make a stop along the way to His "going to" the Father in order to be ABLE to send a message to His disciples by this woman. God is not surprised and the events as described occur according to His Will. So by insisting that the message is "don't touch me YET, I'll be right back" have to go see your and my Father first, I would have to be saying that Mary by going to the tomb when she did is somehow forcing Jesus to make an appearance before He is ready to. That is just one, but the first problem and the easiest to see. Have not really been paying attention to you specifically, and just assume you are a Trinitarian. If not then my apologies and just skip this. From reading early Christian commentaries on this exact verse it is clear they spoke of it in defense of the Trinity and Jesus Divinity. This verse was apparently used by unmentioned heretics to support the idea that both Jesus and the Father are one and the same Person or that Jesus is not God at all (not Divine). So the second issue I have with the understanding that Jesus is saying "don't touch me" to Mary because He has not gone somewhere yet, goes to who we say Jesus is. Jesus is God, He is not the Father, but the Father is God, they are BOTH God yet separate Persons...and so on - standard Trinity stuff. Yet if we say the reason Mary could not touch Him yet was literally as stated because the man standing before her had not yet gone to the Father, there is an opening here for the suggestion that Father and Son are not equals, perhaps that Jesus is not Divine at all. And that is exactly what the early Christians writing on this verse were fighting against, people saying Father is God, but Son is another lesser god or not a god at all. The understanding of this verse they gave avoids this problem.We are talking about a resurrected Jesus, still both God and Man, but not the same body He had before - it is different. He can appear, disappear, appear to walk through things....etc. From scripture it appears He could traverse great distances and possibly even appear simultaneously in multiple places at once. Given those new natures exhibited, what sense does it make in explaining these verses to claim that He would need to appear somewhere (with Mary) BEFORE He had made an important appearance somewhere else (with the Father)? Did Jesus lose his watch?Again perhaps assuming too much about you, orthodox Christianity does not hold the Father as having a body. He is a pure and Infinite Spirit. So in that sense the idea that Jesus needs to "go to" the Father, as in go to some place in order to "be" in His presence does not make sense to me. The lesson or message to Mary is the exact same message He tells her to send to the disciples. This should at least seem odd, as they were not there trying to touch Him and if this is the understanding, not touching Him would NOT be an issue “when” He got back to them later. Why not just say to go tell them I will see them shortly or tonight? What would be the meaning of those words to them and why would those exact same words have a different meaning for them than for Mary?These are just a few of the more obvious issues with what we profess to know about God, His Nature, who the Father and who Jesus are...etc as well as the logic surrounding the idea that the literal expression; "don't touch me" because I need to do something else first before you can touch me; as the only possible explanation of this verse. It may sound simple, but when you think more about it and who said it, the idea that it is only literal has many problems. At least to me it seems so.
 

His By Grace

New Member
Dec 28, 2007
398
0
0
60
You don't believe that Jesus and Mary had the wrong kind of relationship like was depicted in the ?-the name escapes me at the moment. I'm sure it was easy for women to be attracted to Jesus because no one had ever loved them so completely as Him. But I certainly don't think He ever had a relationship with any of them, other than being their friend, Savior, and Lord. You may not think this at all. I was just wondering.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
DrbubbaLove I copied the question here you can copy any other questionsAs far as your Post on this As I said above I dont think opinions are proof I think there is more proof that he did return to the fatherHowever this is based on several things my understanding of Bible structure andthe context and Wording of the scriptures along with Christ's own statementto Mary I think this is perfectly biblical But that being said I'm not comfortable claiming this is undisputable fact without futher information. Although Im more comfortable with the Biblical Words then mens explations. So I think the best we can do here is present both sides and let the reader decide where they fall on this.
 

DrBubbaLove

New Member
Jan 17, 2008
383
2
0
62
Kris,Was not complaining about the closing, it is pointless and annoying to have two active threads.Opinions are not proofs. But when many people have the same opinion and have had it for a considerable amount of time, it is at least worth our consideration. Many here had posted opinions on this verse in this as well as the other thread and my post was simply to point out that no one had expressed what has been a view held by many for nearly 2000 years. Might does not make right, but neither does it automatically make that view wrong.And am by no means suggesting we should ignore literal views, in fact that is probably the first view we should consider for most verses unless the symbolism is obvious to everyone. However, if any view (be it literal or otherwise) creates any doubts about fundamental things we all hold to in our faith (or maybe most here), then I think there is sufficient reason on that grounds alone to suggest the particular view in question is flawed. NOTE (for Jag) I DID NOT SAY BIBLE is flawed. It would only be a particular understanding of a verse that is flawed, and it may only be partially flawed. And the reasons for the flaw could be many (poor translations, lack of keeping in context, modern view of ancient writer….etc). BTW please note that the view of this verse expressed by early Christians and given briefly in my post is not really symbolic, it is at least partially literal. Understandings can mix views in a single verse and verses can also have very valid multiple meanings. But no meaning if properly understood should attack or cast doubts on a fundamental principle of our faith.We are obviously not the first to be discussing this verse and I am certainly not the first to point out many difficulties with the strictly literal view of it. One need only look at these early discussions to see why they argued against a strictly literal view to see the problems associated with it. There are fundamental issues involved with a strictly literal view of Jesus message to Mary (and the disciples). If we are going to support a strictly literal view of this verse, then we cannot ignore those issues. Simply saying "well that is what it says" is not good enough and not worthy of the great minds evident here at this site.