Daniel 12:13 undeniably proves that the AOD fits in the end of this age, not 2000 years ago.

[3 Resurrections]

Only chapter 1 of Acts has Jesus being taken up in a cloud.

That was the second ascension to heaven in Acts 1. You are disregarding the first one on Christ's resurrection day. You are turning a blind eye to Christ's statement to Mary in John 20:17 that He was then ascending to heaven - early that day before the morning. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 when God gave to Christ on the day of His resurrection "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" over which He was anointed the high priest. How else do you think that Christ could claim to ALREADY HAVE THIS POWER, even BEFORE His final ascension in Acts 1? It is because He had already ascended for the first time on His resurrection day and was given that power.

2 Corinthians 5
16Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

That verse about not knowing Christ "according to the flesh" anymore is not referring to Christ ditching His resurrected human body form after His ascension. The "flesh" term many, many times in scripture referred to those who were born as the natural seed of fleshly descent from Abraham the patriarch. This fleshly descent alone was no guarantee of being a child of God. The "flesh" profited nothing in this respect.

Paul was speaking about not giving anyone regard or precedence according to their natural, fleshly, ethnic descent from Abraham. Yes, Christ was one born as a natural descendant of the tribe of Judah, and had been known as such by that first-century generation. But the importance of the tribes was no longer of any consequence when Paul was writing, once Christ's incarnation had fulfilled all the prophecies that wrote about His coming from the tribe of Judah. At that time Paul was writing 2 Corinthians 5:16, there was no more Jew nor Greek, no more bond nor free, no more male nor female having priority in the kingdom. These fleshly segregations had all been laid aside, and "in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:17), all of these were considered to be a new creation.

According to the order of Melchizedek”;
7who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

This is in the days of MELCHIZEDEK'S FLESH when he prayed to be saved from death, and was heard for his piety. This was before he became the deathless priest "having no end of life" that Hebrews 7 wrote about.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

That was the second ascension to heaven in Acts 1. You are disregarding the first one on Christ's resurrection day. You are turning a blind eye to Christ's statement to Mary in John 20:17 that He was then ascending to heaven - early that day before the morning. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 when God gave to Christ on the day of His resurrection "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" over which He was anointed the high priest. How else do you think that Christ could claim to ALREADY HAVE THIS POWER, even BEFORE His final ascension in Acts 1? It is because He had already ascended for the first time on His resurrection day and was given that power.

Show clear scripture where Jesus would ascend twice and afterwards where it says He ascended twice.

Paul was speaking about not giving anyone regard or precedence according to their natural, fleshly, ethnic descent from Abraham.

Ok, describe how they knew Him when Thomas put his hand in Jesus side? And then describe how they would know Him afterwards with clear scripture to back it up.

This is in the days of MELCHIZEDEK'S FLESH

Now you're claiming Melchizedek went to the cross and suffered.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Show clear scripture where Jesus would ascend twice and afterwards where it says He ascended twice.

I already did by supplying John 20:17 where Jesus told Mary, "...Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father: but go unto my brethren and say unto them I AM ASCENDING to my Father..." This was the first ascension before that morning had dawned. You and I of course agree that Jesus ascended in Acts 1. That makes two ascensions.

We also have the prophesy of this resurrection-day ascension foretold in Psalms 110:3 (the LXX in particular). This was the day when God would say unto the (ascended) Son, "With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE FROM THE WOMB BEFORE THE MORNING. The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." This is an echo of Psalms 2:7, which says, "Thou art my Son: THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." Paul unmistakably identified "this day" as the day when Christ was bodily resurrected (Acts 13:33-34).

God had "begotten" the bodily-resurrected Christ in heaven that day, and it was "before the morning" when Christ ascended to His Father. This was when God anointed Christ as the high priest after the order of Melchizedek - NOT 40 days later at Christ's Acts 1 ascension.

Ok, describe how they knew Him when Thomas put his hand in Jesus side? And then describe how they would know Him afterwards with clear scripture to back it up.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but I don't understand the intent of your questions. I've already explained Paul's meaning behind his statement of "henceforth know we no man after the flesh...". This meant that the fleshly connection as a natural descendant of Abraham had no value under the New Covenant .

Now you're claiming Melchizedek went to the cross and suffered.

Not at all. That is a parenthetical statement inserted into the Hebrews 5:6-10 text. "As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of MELCHISEDEC." (Begin parentheses here) "WHO in the days of his flesh" (referring back to Melchisedec) "when he" (Melchisedec) "had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared:" (end of parentheses here) "Though he were a Son" (back to discussing Christ again now), "yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say" (about Melchisedec) "and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing."

Of course Melchizedek did not go to a cross, because Melchizedek had "no beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:3). I believe Melchizedek was the translated Enoch who "was translated that he should not see death". I believe the godly Enoch begged God for a release from the death process, and that God heard his prayers to save him from death and answered them by translating him.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe Melchizedek was the translated Enoch who "was translated that he should not see death". I believe the godly Enoch begged God for a release from the death process, and that God heard his prayers to save him from death and answered them by translating him.

If Melchizedek literally had no beginning of days, but that Enoch obviously did(Genesis 5:18), how is what you are proposing logical? Enoch not seeing death does not equal no beginning of days, it only equals no end of life. How can it equal both? Is what is recorded in Genesis 5:18 incorrect or something?


I don't know if the following is correct or not, but I do see it making good sense, because, for one, only God can literally have no beginning of days, no one else possibly can. If anyone else can literally have no beginning of days, this implies, either they are equal to God, or they are God. How could it not?

---------------


What does Hebrews 7:3 mean?
The writer of Hebrews is using the figure of Melchizedek to explain how Jesus Christ offers us a superior covenant with God. As part of that, he seeks to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham: Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and offered Melchizedek tithes. The reference to the priest figure in this verse is this same Melchizedek who the Old Testament describes as king of Salem—meaning "peace"—and as a priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18).

The Greek phrase used here is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken absolutely literally. By saying that Melchizedek is "without father or mother or genealogy," the writer simply means that his lineage is unknown: he is agenealogētos. This turn of phrase meant a person of unknown or obscure birth, possibly even of low birth. This point is used symbolically by the author of Hebrews, as a parallel to Jesus Christ and His eternality.

As it applies to this section, this relates to the nature of the priesthood. Human priests come and go—they are born, they age, and they die. Their priesthood cannot continue forever. Melchizedek, then, as someone with no recorded beginning or end, serves as a metaphor for the priesthood which God promised: one without end, in a priesthood which lasts forever.

What does Hebrews 7:3 mean? | BibleRef.com

Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. - What is the meaning of Hebrews 7:3?

www.bibleref.com

 

[3 Resurrections]

If Melchizedek literally had no beginning of days, but that Enoch obviously did(Genesis 5:18), how is what you are proposing logical? Enoch not seeing death does not equal no beginning of days, it only equals no end of life. How can it equal both? Is what is recorded in Genesis 5:18 incorrect or something?

Good question. If the translated Enoch that did not see death was actually the deathless Melchizedek, as I am proposing, then he continued to live on after Noah's flood, but without any recorded pedigree of father or mother, and no witnesses to his birth or to his parentage. From the perspective of anyone living or being born after the flood, this made Enoch / Melchizedek appear to have no beginning of days. The quote you gave is giving something of the same sense, in that Enoch's / Melchizedek's lineage would have been unknown to the generations that grew up after the flood.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

This was the first ascension before that morning had dawned. You and I of course agree that Jesus ascended in Acts 1. That makes two ascensions.

Here are 4 testimonies of the same event at the same time and same group of women from 4 different perspectives. Mary M is the main female character in all 4 accounts. No mention by the angels that Jesus has risen and ascended like you claim. No matter how dark it was when they went to the tomb, they got there at the crack of dawn with the intention of anointing His body. It appears that when they got there, Mary M assumed they had taken the body somewhere. And before hearing from the angels she and at least one other woman hightailed it to tell Peter and the other disciple who lived a couple miles away in Bethany what had happened. In the meantime, the other women had left with the directions from the angels. Then Mary M and Peter and the other disciple went to the tomb. It was empty and there were no angels. So by now it would be a couple of hours after dawn when Jesus met Mary at the tomb when He told her not to cling to Him because He had not yet ascended. But you stated He ascended before dark which can't be true if He hadn't ascended yet when He saw Mary. At this time Peter and the other disciple had returned home. She is to tell them when she sees them "Jesus is ascending" It's a present indicative active verb which means He isn't ascending until sometime after she tells them.

Matthew 28:1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
Mark16:1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they could go and anoint the body of Jesus.
Luke 24:1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared.
....10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.
John 20:1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.... “ “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,” she said, and we do not know where they have put Him!”

Perhaps I'm just dense, but I don't understand the intent of your questions. I've already explained Paul's meaning behind his statement of "henceforth know we no man after the flesh...". This meant that the fleshly connection as a natural descendant of Abraham had no value under the New Covenant .

Not your fault, it wasn't a well stated question. I'll rephrase it. Are you saying that the beat up body with the scars of the resurrection is His "glorified body". Then, what exactly what is a glorified body?

Of course Melchizedek did not go to a cross, because Melchizedek had "no beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:3). I believe Melchizedek was the translated Enoch who "was translated that he should not see death". I believe the godly Enoch begged God for a release from the death process, and that God heard his prayers to save him from death and answered them by translating him.

First of all, it was Jesus who prayed at Gethsemane to have His cup removed, not Melchizedek. So, the parenthetical is: (according to the order of Melchizedek) Did you have a dream about Enoch or something?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Not your fault, it wasn't a well stated question. I'll rephrase it. Are you saying that the beat up body with the scars of the resurrection is His "glorified body". Then, what exactly what is a glorified body?

Christ's glorified resurrected body - the one which left the grave on Saturday night and which encountered Mary in John 20:14-17 - this glorified body had no marks or blemishes of any kind. It was spotless, as was required for a high priest back under the OC. No blemishes or defects of any sort whatever, or Christ could not have been anointed as our high priest. Christ then ascended to God and "offered Himself WITHOUT SPOT TO GOD" (Hebrews 9:14), was then anointed by God as our great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and sprinkled His blood sacrifice on the mercy seat in heaven's temple. Then He returned to earth again shortly afterward, to encounter the women on the road who were then allowed to hold Him by the feet - their touch no longer forbidden, since they were now considered vicariously holy in God's sight by virtue of Christ's high priesthood and blood offering on their behalf.

Christ's glorified, resurrected human body could adopt other forms at will, such as the "hetera morphe" ("another form") that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw, but did not recognize as the Lord. Christ could then adopt another body form that same evening that did include crucifixion signs, just to confirm the disciples wavering faith that it was He Himself they were seeing. So apparently the glorified, resurrected body for the saints can adopt various forms at will also - even invisibility as the Savior did.

First of all, it was Jesus who prayed at Gethsemane to have His cup removed, not Melchizedek.

Do we actually read of Christ's "strong cryings and tears" of desperation to avoid the cross? Not that I can read. What I read about the Garden of Gethsemane is, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). Also, the Hebrews 5:7 phrase says that those prayers to be saved from death were HEARD by God, meaning that God answered them. But if this actually was Christ in Hebrews 5:7 with strong cryings and tears begging to avoid the death of the cross, those prayers were NOT heard and answered by God, since Christ had to complete the whole ordeal without escaping the death process.

Did you have a dream about Enoch or something?

No, I just paid careful attention in English class when they taught about pronouns, their referents, and sentence structure. The pronouns "WHO in the days of HIS flesh" in that Hebrews 5:7 phrase refer back to Melchizedek. The translated Enoch becoming known as the deathless Melchizedek in later generations gets rid of all the confusion of identifying who Melchizedek was.

 

[DavidPT]

Here are 4 testimonies of the same event at the same time and same group of women from 4 different perspectives. Mary M is the main female character in all 4 accounts. No mention by the angels that Jesus has risen and ascended like you claim. No matter how dark it was when they went to the tomb, they got there at the crack of dawn with the intention of anointing His body. It appears that when they got there, Mary M assumed they had taken the body somewhere. And before hearing from the angels she and at least one other woman hightailed it to tell Peter and the other disciple who lived a couple miles away in Bethany what had happened. In the meantime, the other women had left with the directions from the angels. Then Mary M and Peter and the other disciple went to the tomb. It was empty and there were no angels. So by now it would be a couple of hours after dawn when Jesus met Mary at the tomb when He told her not to cling to Him because He had not yet ascended. But you stated He ascended before dark which can't be true if He hadn't ascended yet when He saw Mary. At this time Peter and the other disciple had returned home. She is to tell them when she sees them "Jesus is ascending" It's a present indicative active verb which means He isn't ascending until sometime after she tells them.

Matthew 28:1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
Mark16:1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they could go and anoint the body of Jesus.
Luke 24:1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared.
....10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.
John 20:1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.... “ “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,” she said, and we do not know where they have put Him!”

John 20:17 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.


Apparently, the reason Mary was to not touch Him at the time, is because He is yet to ascend to the Father, that He has to do that before He can be touched. Assuming that doesn't initially happen until what is recorded in Acts 1, what is the point being made here then? Wouldn't it mean that Mary never gets to touch Him if He is not to be touched until He ascends to the Father, except, once He does that He never bodily returns before Mary eventually dies?

Why is it then, before we even get to the time involving Acts 1 and His ascension back into heaven, that Thomas is permitted to touch Him but Mary was not permitted to touch Him earlier on when she initially encountered Him? Did Jesus say the reason Mary was not allowed to touch Him is because she was a woman, and the reason Thomas was allowed to touch Him is because He is a man? Or did Jesus simply mean, no male nor female was permitted to touch Him until He has ascended to the Father first?

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


Apparently this was meaning before the break of dawn.

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


And that this is meaning that same day in the evening. Where then should we assume Jesus was after when Mary initially saw Him until He shows up here? Did He not say in verse 17, go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Why would He say that at that particular time if He was ultimately meaning in the future, the time involving His ascension in Acts 1?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Or did Jesus simply mean, no male nor female was permitted to touch Him until He has ascended to the Father first?

YES.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Christ's glorified resurrected body - the one which left the grave on Saturday night and which encountered Mary in John 20:14-17 - this glorified body had no marks or blemishes of any kind. It was spotless, as was required for a high priest back under the OC. No blemishes or defects of any sort whatever, or Christ could not have been anointed as our high priest. Christ then ascended to God and "offered Himself WITHOUT SPOT TO GOD" (Hebrews 9:14), was then anointed by God as our great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and sprinkled His blood sacrifice on the mercy seat in heaven's temple. Then He returned to earth again shortly afterward, to encounter the women on the road who were then allowed to hold Him by the feet - their touch no longer forbidden, since they were now considered vicariously holy in God's sight by virtue of Christ's high priesthood and blood offering on their behalf.

He offered Himself to God without spot or blemish as the "lamb of God" at the cross. As the high priest He would bring the blood of the sacrifice into the "heavenly sanctuary", and it would have to be on the day of atonement in order to fulfill the law.

Christ's glorified, resurrected human body could adopt other forms at will, such as the "hetera morphe" ("another form") that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw, but did not recognize as the Lord. Christ could then adopt another body form that same evening that did include crucifixion signs, just to confirm the disciples wavering faith that it was He Himself they were seeing. So apparently the glorified, resurrected body for the saints can adopt various forms at will also - even invisibility as the Savior did.

He told them He was flesh and bone, which is the same as flesh and blood. In the old testament they used the phrase "you are my bone and my flesh instead of "flesh and blood" meaning the same thing. After all, the life of the flesh is in the blood and we know blood is made in the bone. Otherwise, bloodless flesh and bones would literally be dead flesh and dry bones.
Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Do we actually read of Christ's "strong cryings and tears" of desperation to avoid the cross? Not that I can read. What I read about the Garden of Gethsemane is, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). Also, the Hebrews 5:7 phrase says that those prayers to be saved from death were HEARD by God, meaning that God answered them. But if this actually was Christ in Hebrews 5:7 with strong cryings and tears begging to avoid the death of the cross, those prayers were NOT heard and answered by God, since Christ had to complete the whole ordeal without escaping the death process.

The Father obviously heard His prayer even sending an angel to strengthen Him for the answer He would be delivered from the death of the cross where He was the sinless lamb of God without spot or blemish.
Matthew 26:
41And He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, where He knelt down and prayed, 42“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”
43Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him. 44And in His anguish, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.

No, I just paid careful attention in English class when they taught about pronouns, their referents, and sentence structure. The pronouns "WHO in the days of HIS flesh" in that Hebrews 5:7 phrase refer back to Melchizedek. The translated Enoch becoming known as the deathless Melchizedek in later generations gets rid of all the confusion of identifying who Melchizedek was.

I'm glad you do pay attention, as it seems most Christians ignore the grammar of the New Testament completely. However, I'm going to argue that Christ is the object of both quotes and that Christ is therefore the antecedent noun the "who" is replacing. Otherwise, in the passage the following pronouns in red would also refer to Melchizedek with the untenable declaration that Melchizedek being named high priest after the order of Melchizedek. However the pronoun in verse 11 does refer to Melchisedek.

Hebrews 5:5So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him,
"Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:"
6as he saith also in another place,
"Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek."
7Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, 8though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; 9and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; 10named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. 11Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing.

 

[3 Resurrections]

He offered Himself to God without spot or blemish as the "lamb of God" at the cross. As the high priest He would bring the blood of the sacrifice into the "heavenly sanctuary", and it would have to be on the day of atonement in order to fulfill the law.

I'm sure you know that BOTH the sacrifice as well as the high priest himself were required to be without blemish. But Hebrews did not say Christ had to wait from His crucifixion at Passover until the Day of Atonement in the seventh month to become our Great High Priest. Hebrews 9:11 said that Christ had already come as a high priest, having entered heaven's temple with His own blood, thereby obtaining eternal redemption for us by His actions. The New Covenant was launched that resurrection day with that change in the priesthood, and the change in the law. This did not require waiting until the 7th month and the Day of Atonement to accomplish this.

Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

That "flesh and blood" is again referring to fleshly descendants of Abraham. Ethnic descent by being related by blood to Abraham was no guarantee of inheriting the kingdom of God. It would be the "children of faith" along with faithful Abraham that were the true seed of Abraham - the true Israel of God.

Paul's statement did not intend to mean that physically-resurrected, glorified human bodies of flesh would not enter heaven.

Hebrews 5:5So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him,
"Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:"

That particular "THIS DAY" was Christ's resurrection day when God directly spoke to the Son face-to-face in heaven at His first ascension. As Paul testified later in Acts 13:33-34, "THIS DAY" in the Psalms 2 prophecy Paul equated with the day when God raised up Jesus from the dead, no more to return to corruption.

As far as the Hebrews 5:5-11 text is concerned, all of verse 7 is parenthetical - referring to Melchizedek who had just been mentioned. Verse 8 then switches back to discussing Christ's actions. You choose to apply the pronouns in verse 7 to Christ - not Melchizedek - but that goes against the sentence structure entirely.

 

[Timtofly]

Of course Melchizedek did not go to a cross, because Melchizedek had "no beginning of days nor end of life" (Heb. 7:3). I believe Melchizedek was the translated Enoch who "was translated that he should not see death". I believe the godly Enoch begged God for a release from the death process, and that God heard his prayers to save him from death and answered them by translating him.

Melchizedek was Shem, Noah's son. He was the original founder of the city known today as Jerusalem. It was called Salem in Abraham's day.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Melchizedek was Shem, Noah's son.

I've seen that proposed online as one solution, but it doesn't really match with the "without father, without mother, without descent" idea. And having "no end of life" doesn't match Shem's 600 year old lifespan either.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I'm sure you know that BOTH the sacrifice as well as the high priest himself were required to be without blemish. But Hebrews did not say Christ had to wait from His crucifixion at Passover until the Day of Atonement in the seventh month to become our Great High Priest. Hebrews 9:11 said that Christ had already come as a high priest, having entered heaven's temple with His own blood, thereby obtaining eternal redemption for us by His actions. The New Covenant was launched that resurrection day with that change in the priesthood, and the change in the law. This did not require waiting until the 7th month and the Day of Atonement to accomplish this.

Jesus became high priest when God swore an oath in Psalm 110, however it came to fruition when He ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. As you well know, Christ's body was completely scarred at His crucifixion from head to toe. He was the unblemished lamb of God when he went to the cross as the "sinless lamb of God".

That "flesh and blood" is again referring to fleshly descendants of Abraham. Ethnic descent by being related by blood to Abraham was no guarantee of inheriting the kingdom of God. It would be the "children of faith" along with faithful Abraham that were the true seed of Abraham - the true Israel of God.

Paul's statement did not intend to mean that physically-resurrected, glorified human bodies of flesh would not enter heaven.

Explain your view of each of these verses preceding Paul's statement in verse 50. Keep in mind, that "gives" in verse 38 is a present indicative active verb. (Thus, present active indicative shows that the action happens in the present time, that the subject carries out the action, and that it is a true statement.)
1 Corinthians 15:35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

That particular "THIS DAY" was Christ's resurrection day when God directly spoke to the Son face-to-face in heaven at His first ascension. As Paul testified later in Acts 13:33-34, "THIS DAY" in the Psalms 2 prophecy Paul equated with the day when God raised up Jesus from the dead, no more to return to corruption.

As far as the Hebrews 5:5-11 text is concerned, all of verse 7 is parenthetical - referring to Melchizedek who had just been mentioned. Verse 8 then switches back to discussing Christ's actions. You choose to apply the pronouns in verse 7 to Christ - not Melchizedek - but that goes against the sentence structure entirely.

I can't find any commentator who believes either one of these assertions. Hebrews is not a story of Melchisedek, but rather of Christ as high priest. The "he" in verse 8 follows those in verse 7.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Jesus became high priest when God swore an oath in Psalm 110, however it came to fruition when He ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. As you well know, Christ's body was completely scarred at His crucifixion from head to toe. He was the unblemished lamb of God when he went to the cross as the "sinless lamb of God".

I agree with every bit of this. None of it contradicts what I have stated about the resurrection-day ascension of Christ.

Explain your view of each of these verses preceding Paul's statement in verse 50. Keep in mind, that "gives" in verse 38 is a present indicative active verb. (Thus, present active indicative shows that the action happens in the present time, that the subject carries out the action, and that it is a true statement.)
1 Corinthians 15:35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
36You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

I'm not sure why you are particularly emphasizing the word "gives" in this 1 Cor. 15:38 verse. Perhaps you can explain?
As to the rest of these 1 Cor. 15-36-38 verses, they do not conflict with what I said above about "flesh and blood" of an ethnic Israelite status not inheriting the kingdom of God.

Paul ALSO included in that same 1 Cor. 15:50 verse that "NEITHER does corruption inherit incorruption". The corruptible dead human body of a child of God has to be altered by God changing it into the incorruptible state in a bodily resurrection. To do this, He uses the original material of the human body. It is as nothing for Him to do this, since He originally created Adam out of the dust of the ground, anyway. The decayed dust of our original human body forms is no different; even if that dust has been scattered to the four winds. That scattered dust can likewise be used by God in the resurrection process when it is changed into an incorruptible flesh and body form which will never die again.

I can't find any commentator who believes either one of these assertions. Hebrews is not a story of Melchisedek, but rather of Christ as high priest. The "he" in verse 8 follows those in verse 7.

The resurrection-day ascension of Christ was believed and taught by Paul in Acts 13:33-34. That should suffice, even if you yourself have not yet encountered this view in a current commentary. Hebrews does not make the story of Melchizedek the primary focus, but it DOES make him the pattern type which Christ ultimately fulfilled by His actions. To sweep Melchizedek's identity and biography under the rug as being inconsequential is a vast mistake. Hebrews devotes much time to making the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ, and it behooves us to pay attention to it, even if the Hebrews original readers were "dull of hearing" and slow to catch on to the vital importance of this comparison.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

I'm not sure why you are particularly emphasizing the word "gives" in this 1 Cor. 15:38 verse. Perhaps you can explain?
As to the rest of these 1 Cor. 15-36-38 verses, they do not conflict with what I said above about "flesh and blood" of an ethnic Israelite status not inheriting the kingdom of God.

Paul ALSO included in that same 1 Cor. 15:50 verse that "NEITHER does corruption inherit incorruption". The corruptible dead human body of a child of God has to be altered by God changing it into the incorruptible state in a bodily resurrection. To do this, He uses the original material of the human body. It is as nothing for Him to do this, since He originally created Adam out of the dust of the ground, anyway. The decayed dust of our original human body forms is no different; even if that dust has been scattered to the four winds. That scattered dust can likewise be used by God in the resurrection process when it is changed into an incorruptible flesh and body form which will never die again.

I can't find any scripture that teaches that we'll be recreated again from the dust of the ground. There's no such thing that is stated as "incorruptible flesh". And G
as Peter says. From Isaiah 40
Peter 1:23For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24For, “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was proclaimed to you..

As Paul says: 1 Corinthians 15:
37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
The question is How are the dead raised and with what body do they come?

The resurrection-day ascension of Christ was believed and taught by Paul in Acts 13:33-34.

I'm seeing the resurrection not any ascension. I guess your saying the resurrection is the ascension, otherwise I can't even begin to understand what you're thinking.
Acts 13:
33He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
'You are My Son;
today I have become Your Father.’
Romans 1:
4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Here are instructions for the passover:
Exodus 13:2, God says, “Consecrate every firstborn male to me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is mine.”

Apparently, the reason Mary was to not touch Him at the time, is because He is yet to ascend to the Father, that He has to do that before He can be touched. Assuming that doesn't initially happen until what is recorded in Acts 1, what is the point being made here then? Wouldn't it mean that Mary never gets to touch Him if He is not to be touched until He ascends to the Father, except, once He does that He never bodily returns before Mary eventually dies?

I will give you a couple of explanations from Greek scholars. The verb used for do not touch is a present imperative middle

http://www.drshirley.org/greek/textbook02/chapter18-pres-imperative.pdf

18.2 The Present Stem of the verb in Greek is used not only for describing an action that is going on at the present time, but for actions that go on over a period of time (continuously), or repeatedly. English no longer makes a clear distinction between "do something" (once) and "be doing something" (in process). So we usually translate the Present Imperative as "do something". Greek has a way of showing if something is to be done just once - we will meet that form of the verb later.
18.5 Prohibitions - How to say No Greek has several ways of saying "Don't (do something)." One way is to use a negative word with the Present Imperative, in which case the implication is "Stop (doing something)". For all parts of the verb other than the Indicative, Greek uses µή for "no, not". Greek uses οὐ for the Indicative only. Some times it is important to make a distinction in the translation between continuous and single action - for example, in John 20:17, when Mary Magdalene meets the risen Christ, many of the English versions translate his words as "Don't touch me!" , which sounds as if he is forbidding Mary Magdalene to reach out and touch him. The Greek uses a Present Imperative with µή ( µή µου ἅπτου - from the verb ἅπτοµαι, which has a different set of endings than the -ω verbs). A better translation would be "Don't continue to touch - cling to - me.", which gives the picture of her already having thrown her arms around him. Note : The simple prohibition "Don't (do something)", and the way of saying "Don't start (to do something)" use the Aorist tense of the verb which we will meet later.

Touch me not (μη μου ἁπτου [mē mou haptou]). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” -- Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (John 20:17). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

Apparently this was meaning before the break of dawn.

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Jesus had already risen earlier that morning after the sabbath.

They all kept the sabbath at that time

Luke 23: 55And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
They all got there at dawn. The stone had already been rolled away. Mary then ran off to tell Peter and the other disciple who were probably staying a couple of miles away the the disciples home in Bethany. It probably took her at least 15 minutes to get there. The she, Peter and the other disciple race back and find the tomb empty. While the disciples return to their homes, Mary stays behind and weeps when Jesus shows up and Mary mistakes Him for the gardener. Why wouldn't she recognize Him. Could it be this?
Isaiah 52:
14Just as many were appalled at Him—
His appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man,
and His form was marred beyond human likeness—

But when He says Mary it is I, you can imagine her joy when she exclaims "Rabbani" without a bit of disbelief, she grabs Him as is customary before He can say anything and then He tells her not to touch Him. He tells her He has not yet ascended. Then He tells her to go tell His disciples that He is ascending. Because of the verb tense, the ascension would have to be some time after she tells them "I am ascending". But He is reminding them when He said they would see Him ascending. John 6:6What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
It would have to be the ascension of Acts 1.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I can't find any scripture that teaches that we'll be recreated again from the dust of the ground.

As you know, our bodies from Adam forward are said to be made of dust, and will return to dust. Yet Christ promised His disciples that, even though they might be martyred for Him, that "not an hair of your head shall perish" (Luke 21:18). This is the difference between those who are not children of God and those who are. Those who are NOT children of God will utterly perish, both body and soul (Matthew 10:28). Those who ARE children of God will never perish (John 10:28), neither body nor soul. These two opposing groups do NOT share the same kind of final destiny.

Job 14:12-15 (LXX) describes how Job would die, be laid in the grave, and would wait the appointed time until he was "made again" when God called him back to life again.

Isaiah 24:19 also describes how the dead who belong to God who "dwell in dust", along with Isaiah himself, would arise and live again when "the earth would cast out its dead". In contrast, there are those in the same context who do NOT arise from the dust of the grave. Isaiah 24:14 says of these, They are dead, they shall NOT LIVE; they are deceased, they shall NOT RISE; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them and made all their memory to PERISH." John 5:29 writes of this same contrasting fate of those belonging to God who have a "resurrection to life" as opposed to those not belonging to God who have a "resurrection to judgment", condemnation, or damnation. For the wicked, their dead bodies are never rejoined with their spirit in the resurrection, but those dead bodies are left to disintegrate in the grave.

The entire Ezekiel 37 description of the nation of Israel being restored to life again in the post-exilic return gives us a picture of a bodily resurrection. It depicts this restoration to life in the most explicit terms of dead, dry bones being covered again with sinews, flesh, and skin, and the breath of God restoring them to existence once more as they stand upon their feet. God was using the example of what a bodily resurrection looks like to illustrate what He was going to do metaphorically to the dead nation of Israel after their 70-year exile.

As Paul says: 1 Corinthians 15:
37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
The question is How are the dead raised and with what body do they come?

The "IT" body which goes into the ground is the very same "IT" material which is changed into an incorruptible condition. "IT is sown in corruption; IT is raised in incorruption. IT is sown in dishonour; IT is raised in glory: IT is sown in weakness; IT is raised in power; IT is sown a natural body; IT is raised a spiritual body." A body goes into the ground, and that same body arises from the ground by the Spirit's power in an altered state which is incapable of dying again. God "gives" to the dead body of that child of God "its own body", changed by the resurrection process into an immortal and incorruptible state which can live in His presence.

I'm seeing the resurrection not any ascension. I guess your saying the resurrection is the ascension, otherwise I can't even begin to understand what you're thinking.

Paul in Acts 13:33-34 was quoting the prophesied ascension passage from Psalms 2 when God would speak directly to the Son on that day, saying, "Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." This face-to-face meeting between God and His Son took place in heaven on that day when Christ had just risen from the tomb - not 40 days later for His next, Acts 1 ascension. To be "begotten" of God was for Christ to be standing face-to-face in God's presence in a glorified, resurrected human body - the absolute first one ever to do so. This gave Christ the unique title of being the "First-begotten from the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

 

[Ed Parenteau]

As you know, our bodies from Adam forward are said to be made of dust, and will return to dust. Yet Christ promised His disciples that, even though they might be martyred for Him, that "not an hair of your head shall perish" (Luke 21:18). This is the difference between those who are not children of God and those who are. Those who are NOT children of God will utterly perish, both body and soul (Matthew 10:28). Those who ARE children of God will never perish (John 10:28), neither body nor soul. These two opposing groups do NOT share the same kind of final destiny.

Job 14:12-15 (LXX) describes how Job would die, be laid in the grave, and would wait the appointed time until he was "made again" when God called him back to life again.

Isaiah 24:19 also describes how the dead who belong to God who "dwell in dust", along with Isaiah himself, would arise and live again when "the earth would cast out its dead". In contrast, there are those in the same context who do NOT arise from the dust of the grave. Isaiah 24:14 says of these, They are dead, they shall NOT LIVE; they are deceased, they shall NOT RISE; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them and made all their memory to PERISH." John 5:29 writes of this same contrasting fate of those belonging to God who have a "resurrection to life" as opposed to those not belonging to God who have a "resurrection to judgment", condemnation, or damnation. For the wicked, their dead bodies are never rejoined with their spirit in the resurrection, but those dead bodies are left to disintegrate in the grave.

The entire Ezekiel 37 description of the nation of Israel being restored to life again in the post-exilic return gives us a picture of a bodily resurrection. It depicts this restoration to life in the most explicit terms of dead, dry bones being covered again with sinews, flesh, and skin, and the breath of God restoring them to existence once more as they stand upon their feet. God was using the example of what a bodily resurrection looks like to illustrate what He was going to do metaphorically to the dead nation of Israel after their 70-year exile.

The "IT" body which goes into the ground is the very same "IT" material which is changed into an incorruptible condition. "IT is sown in corruption; IT is raised in incorruption. IT is sown in dishonour; IT is raised in glory: IT is sown in weakness; IT is raised in power; IT is sown a natural body; IT is raised a spiritual body." A body goes into the ground, and that same body arises from the ground by the Spirit's power in an altered state which is incapable of dying again. God "gives" to the dead body of that child of God "its own body", changed by the resurrection process into an immortal and incorruptible state which can live in His presence.

Paul in Acts 13:33-34 was quoting the prophesied ascension passage from Psalms 2 when God would speak directly to the Son on that day, saying, "Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." This face-to-face meeting between God and His Son took place in heaven on that day when Christ had just risen from the tomb - not 40 days later for His next, Acts 1 ascension. To be "begotten" of God was for Christ to be standing face-to-face in God's presence in a glorified, resurrected human body - the absolute first one ever to do so. This gave Christ the unique title of being the "First-begotten from the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

Christ was using a metaphor for eternal life as everyone's hair literally perishes.

The IT is the body being a seed. The wheat seed doesn't become another wheat seed, it becomes a stalk of wheat. Paul uses an analogy of the body being a seed to express something much more glorious than the body/seed that we bury. That's why he says "what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed,"
Revelation 1:5 has 3 distinct parts. A. The faithful witness unto death, B. becoming the firstborn when He was resurrected and 3. when He ascended and sat down at the right hand of God "until He would make His enemies a footstool for His feet."

Job 14:12-15 (LXX) describes how Job would die, be laid in the grave, and would wait the appointed time until he was "made again" when God called him back to life again.

Isaiah 24:19 also describes how the dead who belong to God who "dwell in dust", along with Isaiah himself, would arise and live again when "the earth would cast out its dead". In contrast, there are those in the same context who do NOT arise from the dust of the grave. Isaiah 24:14 says of these, They are dead, they shall NOT LIVE; they are deceased, they shall NOT RISE; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them and made all their memory to PERISH." John 5:29 writes of this same contrasting fate of those belonging to God who have a "resurrection to life" as opposed to those not belonging to God who have a "resurrection to judgment", condemnation, or damnation. For the wicked, their dead bodies are never rejoined with their spirit in the resurrection, but those dead bodies are left to disintegrate in the grave.

The entire Ezekiel 37 description of the nation of Israel being restored to life again in the post-exilic return gives us a picture of a bodily resurrection. It depicts this restoration to life in the most explicit terms of dead, dry bones being covered again with sinews, flesh, and skin, and the breath of God restoring them to existence once more as they stand upon their feet. God was using the example of what a bodily resurrection looks like to illustrate what He was going to do metaphorically to the dead nation of Israel after their 70-year exile.

Job 14: is making a point that man will never again rise on the earth. We shall be made again, but not from the dust of the ground, but of a substance "not of this creation", a heavenly body.
Isaiah 26:19Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. (actual underlying word)NASB

Ezekiel 37: 13Then you, My people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14I will put My Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land.
This is Pentecost when Jews "from every nation under heaven were in Jerusalem and tens of thousands became spirit filled subsequently.

The "IT" body which goes into the ground is the very same "IT" material which is changed into an incorruptible condition. "IT is sown in corruption; IT is raised in incorruption. IT is sown in dishonour; IT is raised in glory: IT is sown in weakness; IT is raised in power; IT is sown a natural body; IT is raised a spiritual body." A body goes into the ground, and that same body arises from the ground by the Spirit's power in an altered state which is incapable of dying again. God "gives" to the dead body of that child of God "its own body", changed by the resurrection process into an immortal and incorruptible state which can live in His presence.

Again, the "IT" is the body/seed.

Paul in Acts 13:33-34 was quoting the prophesied ascension passage from Psalms 2 when God would speak directly to the Son on that day, saying, "Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." This face-to-face meeting between God and His Son took place in heaven on that day when Christ had just risen from the tomb - not 40 days later for His next, Acts 1 ascension. To be "begotten" of God was for Christ to be standing face-to-face in God's presence in a glorified, resurrected human body - the absolute first one ever to do so. This gave Christ the unique title of being the "First-begotten from the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

"To be "begotten" of God was for Christ to be standing face-to-face in God's presence in a glorified, resurrected human body"
I've literally spent hours pouring over scripture trying to look at it from your point of view and can find nothing. Try underlining the scripture that actually says that.
To me, it has everything to do with the resurrection and nothing to do with the ascension.
It may be that you take what is a prolepsis in literal time. A prolepsis is a statement of something as if done but not yet done. Here's a few examples.

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

Luke 10:22
All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

John 3:35
The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in His hands.

John 17:
2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Christ was using a metaphor for eternal life as everyone's hair literally perishes

Wrong figure of speech. "Not an hair of your head shall perish" is a synecdoche, not a metaphor. Christ was using the very smallest part of the human anatomy to represent the entire human body which would never perish out of existence, even when the disciples would be martyred.

The IT is the body being a seed. The wheat seed doesn't become another wheat seed, it becomes a stalk of wheat. Paul uses an analogy of the body being a seed to express something much more glorious than the body/seed that we bury.

"Much more glorious", yes, that is true of the "we shall be CHANGED" alteration which the seed itself goes through in the bodily resurrection to eternal life. The seed itself does not perish, but God alters that seed into an incorruptible condition by giving it immortality which it did not have before.

Again, the "IT" is the body/seed.

Certainly. The "IT" which is the body / seed is raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and as a body with spiritual qualities - not just a spirit being.

"To be "begotten" of God was for Christ to be standing face-to-face in God's presence in a glorified, resurrected human body"
I've literally spent hours pouring over scripture trying to look at it from your point of view and can find nothing. Try underlining the scripture that actually says that.
To me, it has everything to do with the resurrection and nothing to do with the ascension.

It is not enough for mankind to simply be bodily-resurrected above ground into a changed, incorruptible form. The very purpose for that change to the incorruptible is for bodily-resurrected mankind to be directly in God's presence - Eden's intimate fellowship restored between humanity and their Creator. That is why the New Heaven and New Earth conditions included the blessing of "his servants...shall SEE HIS FACE" (Revelation 22: 3-4).

This is the supreme blessing that Moses expressed a longing for; "I beseech thee, show me thy glory", he begged. In our current mortal state, this is an impossibility, but in the glorified, bodily-resurrected state for the saints, this face-to-face fellowship with our Creator is what we ultimately inherit at the culmination of our salvation.

Christ was the "first-begotten" one to do this at His resurrection-day ascension when He "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him", as Daniel 7:13 says about that day when Christ was given dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. This "First-born" status when God consecrated Christ Jesus as our high priest representative made it possible for the rest of the family of God to eventually follow with the same face-to-face experience in the bodily resurrection to come. The entire OT emphasis on the vital importance of the "First-born" male child was a foreshadowing of what Christ Jesus was the first to achieve at His first ascension on His resurrection day.

It may be that you take what is a prolepsis in literal time. A prolepsis is a statement of something as if done but not yet done. Here's a few examples.

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

You are presuming that this verse is a prolepsis. It's not. God directly told the Son at His resurrection-day ascension, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Psalms 2:8). This gift from God to the newly-resurrected and ascended Son had already been given to Him by the time Christ spoke that Matthew 28:18 verse to His disciples. It was because this authority had already been given to the Son that He could then command the disciples to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:19-20).

 

[Ed Parenteau]

"Much more glorious", yes, that is true of the "we shall be CHANGED" alteration which the seed itself goes through in the bodily resurrection to eternal life. The seed itself does not perish, but God alters that seed into an incorruptible condition by giving it immortality which it did not have before.

1 Corinthians 15:Behold, I tell to you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- In this case, Paul tells the Corinthians with a 1st person plural pronoun that not all of them would die but that all of them would be changed. The change takes place while they are still alive.

Paul is talking about the flesh of men. 39Not all flesh is the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, and fish another.
50Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Flesh and blood is perishable and cannot inherit the imperishable which is why a person must be born again of the imperishable seed of the Holy Spirit.
That's why Paul says that it is not the body that goes into the ground that is raised.

Certainly. The "IT" which is the body / seed is raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and as a body with spiritual qualities - not just a spirit being.

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
Paul's using contradistinctions throughout this teaching. He uses the adjective "spiritual" to describe what kind of body it is. He uses a present participle to describe what kind of spirit Christ is. I'll stick with that unless it can be proven wrong. It's too clear for me to deny.

It is not enough for mankind to simply be bodily-resurrected above ground into a changed, incorruptible form. The very purpose for that change to the incorruptible is for bodily-resurrected mankind to be directly in God's presence - Eden's intimate fellowship restored between humanity and their Creator. That is why the New Heaven and New Earth conditions included the blessing of "his servants...shall SEE HIS FACE" (Revelation 22: 3-4).

This is the supreme blessing that Moses expressed a longing for; "I beseech thee, show me thy glory", he begged. In our current mortal state, this is an impossibility, but in the glorified, bodily-resurrected state for the saints, this face-to-face fellowship with our Creator is what we ultimately inherit at the culmination of our salvation.

Christ was the "first-begotten" one to do this at His resurrection-day ascension when He "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him", as Daniel 7:13 says about that day when Christ was given dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. This "First-born" status when God consecrated Christ Jesus as our high priest representative made it possible for the rest of the family of God to eventually follow with the same face-to-face experience in the bodily resurrection to come. The entire OT emphasis on the vital importance of the "First-born" male child was a foreshadowing of what Christ Jesus was the first to achieve at His first ascension on His resurrection day.

The New Jerusalem already came down from heaven and it is the church of the "firstborn"
Hebrews 12:22Instead, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels 23in joyful assembly, to the congregation of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven. You have come to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

You are presuming that this verse is a prolepsis. It's not. God directly told the Son at His resurrection-day ascension, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Psalms 2:8). This gift from God to the newly-resurrected and ascended Son had already been given to Him by the time Christ spoke that Matthew 28:18 verse to His disciples. It was because this authority had already been given to the Son that He could then command the disciples to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (Matthew 28:19-20).

So when did that command actualize?
Not till after the ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit and also the only place that says He went up in a cloud into heaven, not at the resurrection.
Acts 1: Highlighted is future tense.
7Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

9After He had said this, they watched as He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. 10They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”