The perfect tense indicates a completed action in the past. However, in this passage it's modified by the adjective "Not Yet". Therefore, based on grammar, it was not yet completed.
Then, because this is "perfect tense"; it's declaring that Christ had actually already ascended. This jives with Revelation 13:8 which declares that Jesus was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world"; which is also "perfect tense."
"I am ascending" is present tense. However, Jesus was not presently rising to heaven in front of mary, and wouldn't for 40 more days. Therefore, I would argue, it's in the same use as Jesus' evidence of God's present tense use of "I am" in regards to the future resurrection.
This term "I Am" though was not made in reference to the future resurrection. It was stated in reference to the fact that Jesus was indeed the Lord Jehovah who spoke in the Old Testament.
The Jews wanted to kill Jesus based on the accusation of blasphemy "because that thou, being a man, makes thyself God." (John 10:32)
Jesus was not abandoned to hades, nor did his flesh see corruption because of the resurrection.
There is no gospel or epistolic teaching that Jesus's soul went to heaven and then came back down into his resurrected body.
Acts 2:31-32 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Do you believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate?
It wasn't simply Mary touching Christ, it was her "clinging" to him. Obviously, Jesus' reason for Mary not clinging to him, is much different than Him allowing thomas to touch his wounds.
LOL - You think that word "touch" means Mary wanted to drag Jesus under a bush somewhere?
Do you realize that word "touch" (Strong's #680) is used 36 times in the Scripture? It is used for the most part of Jesus touching people and people touching him.
For example: Matthew 8:3 - Jesus speaking to a leper. "And Jesus put forth
his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."
Was Jesus clinging to this leper in a "carnal" manner?
Here's another example: Mark 5:27-31. This little old woman who has some sort of disease touches Jesus's clothing. And Jesus is like: "Who touched me?" And the apostles are like: "What are you talking about; everyone is touching you?"
That's the same word: "Mary don't touch me."
Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
Do you believe the souls of those that die reside under a literal alter? Or do you believe that this symbolic language?
Do humans possess a "symbolic soul"?
No, I don't see that as being "symbolic language". Souls "go somewhere" when the body dies.
And who is responsible for all the righteous blood shed? According to Jesus, 1st century Jerusalem.
Matthew 23:35-36 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,
f whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Note this is qualified "from Abel to Zachariah". What about the believers who've been martyred in the past 2000 years? Is 1st century Jerusalem responsible for millions of believers around the globe who've been martyred by communists and totalitarian regimes today?
And what does Jesus mean when he speaks of these peoples' blood coming upon that generation? Or rather is he talking about that "this generation" will see the destruction of that system? How is it God would hold me accountable for something one of my ancestors did 1000 years ago?
Sorry, you're kind of losing me here. According to your interpretation, The souls under the alter are born again Christians in the flesh on earth still or are the they souls of those that have been killed?
I was speaking of the "spiritual essence" (souls) of believers being raised as it relates to what Paul says about "spiritual bodies". What Paul was saying about "spiritual bodies" is not in reference to raising the flesh. Just as "8 souls" in the ark did not mean Noah and family were disembodied from the flesh when they entered the ark.
The ark represented Christ (even though Noah built a literal ark that survived a literal global flood). Redemption entails raising both the spiritual essence of a person, as well as a physical body.
"signs" in the heavens were in fact seen during the Jewish roman war. There multiple eclipses and a sword shaped comet.
Well there is conflicting reports of this. Josephus speaks of some "sword shaped comet"; yet the only thing the Roman's record was a comet that appeared in 66 AD; that they now believe was Hailey's comet.
There was a coin minted in 73 AD believed to be related to the siege of Jerusalem. The back of this coin though has Shofar trumpets with (what's believed to be a star) but is in the shape of a cross, between the trumpets. Some interpret the symbolism to be a star based on what appears to be other stars around it. Yet it's quite clear that no one recognized the cross as a symbol of Christianity at that point in time.
So it seems to me that the coin would simply be making a statement about Rome "bringing judgement" upon Jerusalem in the form of their symbolism of execution.
Now it is true the Romans did recognize comets, eclipses etc at omens; (comets particularly of impending judgement). But outside of what Josephus records; no one else records phenomena in the sky related to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Scripture is clear though that the darkening of the sun and the moon not giving its lite at the time of the crucifixion is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Not true, the olivet discourse, which is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the signs leading up it mention signs in the sky.
The destruction of Jerusalem is only a portion of what the olivet discourse contains. Not all the information there is pertaining only to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Classic false premise. I don't disagree with scripture. I disagree with how YOU interpret it, just as you disagree with how I interpret it.
So.... how does one know who's interoperation is correct? You do agree that we both can't be right; correct?
If students of the Bible are comparing Scripture with Scripture; isn't the goal to make all of it jive together?
See post #358 about my position on how long the earth will last.
You gave me a verse out of Ecclesiastes; in which I gave you the meaning of the Hebrew word used in that passage that you were assuming meant "forever".
"One generation passes and another generation comes; but the earth from antiquity stands."
Remember that?
Then you said: "Well I agree that maybe the cosmos will be destroyed; but we don't know when".
And then I asked you where do you get the agreement that maybe the cosmos will be destroyed, when all of the passages that people usually interpret as the destruction of the cosmos; you are saying is about the destruction of Jerusalem?
Others insist I answer their questions, to which I do. and as evidenced by me having to ask BAB multiple times, others often don't respond to the questions I ask.
Well I haven't seen where you've answered
@BABerean2 's questions either. Both of us have asked in regards to the New Heavens and New Earth being a literal place of having no sin and no death (and "time is no more"); how does that jive with your saying the nations still need healing in the New Heavens and New Earth?
You insist that the "recreation of the heavens and earth" are related to the destruction of Jerusalem; yet we all still live on an earth plagued by sin and death?
This is confusing. You quoted my passages about both Jesus and
revelation 6 quoting hosea, but did not address it, then go on to state you already explained these passages. Unless I missed it, You did not already explain
Luke 23 and
revelation 6 use of Hosea. Should I assume you are talking about different passages and not
Luke 23 and
revelation 6's use of hosea.
By using scripture to interpret scripture, we can clearly see that the 6th seal is in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad, as Jesus quotes the exact same passage in hosea as being fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem.
OK; let's go through Hosea, Luke 23 and Revelation 6.
Hosea 10:8: (I'm assuming this is the passage you are talking about?)
The high places also of Aven (Comes from Hebrew word that means wickedness - it was also a city in Egypt), the sin (offering) of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.
Luke 23:30:
Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Revelation 6:12-17 (I'm assuming you are talking about the 6th seal?)
I did go over this and how "and the sun became
black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood"; is different wording from "
the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light."
The "sun darkened" comes from Joel 3:15, (also in Isaiah 13:10), Matthew 24:29 and its fulfillment was given in Mark 13:24 and Luke 23:45. (The sun was darkened at the crucifixion.)
Further we have the prophecy spoken of in Joel (2) being stated by Peter at Pentecost that this prophecy is being fulfilled. (Acts 2:17)
Joel 2:31:
The
sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
This correlates with Revelation's 6th seal that clearly talks about the destruction of the cosmos.
I explained that the commencement of judgement begins with the cross and ends at Judgement Day. The elect are judged in Christ at the cross (this is all about what the atonement has to do with) and the rest of the world is judged at Judgement Day. This is preceded by the destruction of the cosmos.
Now Hosea 10:8 speaks of the sin offering being destroyed and thorns and thistles coming up upon Israel's alter. If Hosea 10:8 is fulfilled in 70 AD, when the temple is destroyed; where is the alter that thorns and thistles are coming up on?
Yet if you say the sin offering is destroyed at the cross when the veil in the temple is rent from top to bottom; obviously the next 40 years of animal sacrifices are nothing but "thorns and thistles".
What scripture teaches that Christ took the elect with him to heaven?
You've explained your interpretations of passages, to which I disagreed with and offered rebuttals. Please don't conflate me disagreeing with YOUR interpretation as me refusing to hear the scriptures, and I won't do that to you.
The question here becomes does your interpretation jive with the ENTIRETY of Scripture? Not do you agree or disagree with me (or anyone else for that matter). Again, assuming you agree that two opposing views can't both be correct. How do you determine who's interpretation is the correct one?
Do you believe the parable of the net is about literal fish being caught in a net or a greater spiritual truth? If you believe fish, then at least your consistent with your interpretation of parabolic and symbolic language. But if it is the latter, then why are interpreting the parabolic language of Isaiah 66-65 and revelation in a literal way?
Are you talking about when Jesus tells them to go out once more and throw the net over the other side of the boat, even after they'd not caught anything all day? (He's using a historical event to demonstrate a parable.)
If that's the passage you are talking about; then both are true. They did go out and literally catch a bunch of real fish; yet Jesus explains to them that this event is to illustrate a spiritual truth to them.
Not quite sure what you're asking about Isaiah 65 and 66? Are they literal of figurative (or both)?
Much of what's conveyed about the atonement and God's salvation plan is put in parabolic language that's couched in historical truth.
Adam and Eve were literal people. Eden was a literal place. Noah built a literal ark and there was a literal global flood. Abraham was a literal person. Sodom and Gomorra were literal cities reigned down upon with literal fire and brimstone. Moses was a real person. Exodus really happened. Pharaoh and his army really drown in the literal red (or reed?) sea.
All these historical events were real; but they were also parabolic representations of redemption. And the real point of them was to illustrate truth about redemption.
Jesus didn't just symbolically take on sin, or symbolically address the wrath of God. Those were literal and real experiences of his. And the reality of that was demonstrated by the events that accompanied it. Yes there were literal earthquakes. The sun really went dark. The dead literally rose. Jesus really healed people that even medicine today can't fix. I'm sure you've seen non-verbal profoundly disabled people in wheelchairs. Those were among the kinds of people Jesus healed.
Please provide specific example of how I am being dishonest or twisting their words, otherwise we can all see your just making false accusations.
You agreed that they stated that Jews saw the destruction of the Jewish system as "the end of the world". No one disputes that.
You though have chosen to quote select passage from hundreds to thousands of articles / documents these men have written. Do these men in other writings contradict what you are saying they believe? (That I don't know.) I've said that I'm assuming they believed in a literal recreation of the literal cosmos (although you insist they didn't). If they really didn't; then they were heretics themselves. I don't believe that what you claim they believed is true though. I don't have the time or desire though to go digging through everything they wrote to prove your error.
So, if they really believed what you claim they believe; then they were heroics. If not; then they don't. Doesn't really matter to me. I only read commentaries for a better understanding of history; not to obtain theology from. I study the Bible with a concordance and a lexicon. (Although admittedly, not all the definitions in the lexicons are correct either. and I have found errors in concordances.)
As partial preterist I agree that this is in regards to the destruction of Jerusalem, and NOT to the end of the cosmos and last and final judgment. I have not twisted their words, I have simply copied and pasted their words and stated I agree with them.
As a "partial preterist" myself (which I believe
@BABerean2 is also); you sound to me closer to a full preterist. Or maybe more someone who's a partial post millennialist preterist?
Clearly Scripture talks about the destruction of the literal cosmos. And clearly we see that hasn't happened yet.
Try to avoid false accusation, especially if your not going to give an example.
If you can't give a full exposition of the entire body of writings of any of these three (or four if you want to count Josephus) men; to say you are not telling the entire truth is not a false accusation.
And yes, you've already been given plenty of examples.
I'm considering whether or not I want to address your arguments about the New Jerusalem? Admittedly, I've learned stuff just from looking things up, even if I haven't learned anything particularly from you. Call it "practice sharpening the sword"; LOL I don't know but, you've served to further confirm what I've already learned as the difference between truth and error.