Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[parousia70]

Do YOU believe those events have already occurred? If so, please provide PROOF.

Like the way some random Volcano proves to you that God was seen coming down from heaven on the clouds, killing his enemies with His Brightness? That's proof enough for you, right?

As I said before, you yourself believe and proclaim that there are FULFILLED prophesies that you yourself Can't PROVE have already occurred...

Apparently It's only OK when you do it.

 

[parousia70]

Well, that New Testament Church was actually started with the change in the priesthood when Christ ascended on His resurrection day and was anointed by God to serve in that role of our "Great High Priest".

Is there a scriptural record of this proposed ascension and second coming on resurrection day?

And how do you square that proposition with Hebrews 9?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Is there a scriptural record of this proposed ascension and second coming on resurrection day?

I never said scripture wrote of Christ's second coming on His resurrection day. The second coming return of Christ referred to in Hebrews 9:28 was going to have His accompanying angels gather the resurrected, glorified bodies of the saints from every direction of the four winds and give rewards in that judgment, as the gospels described. But that second coming was not on Christ's resurrection day. It was to be later after the "beginning of sorrows" preceded the "Great tribulation" which took place in the AD 66-70 period. It was just as 1 Corinthians 15:23 described the order in which those two particular bodily resurrection events would have occurred: "Christ the Firstfruits; AFTERWARD they that are Christ's at His coming."

On Christ's resurrection day, (the "FIRST resurrection"), the ascended Son of Man alone (without angelic assistance) resurrected the many Matthew 27:52-53 saints and gave them as "gifts to men" to serve the church in those various roles of evangelists, prophets, pastors, teachers, etc. (Ephesian 4:8-12). That "First resurrection" event was also described in the Revelation 14:14 "reaping" of the "dried harvest" of the earth (the Matthew 27:52-53 saints) that the newly-crowned high priest Christ harvested by Himself with the "sickle".

Christ told Mary that morning after His resurrection that He was then ascending to the Father. ("Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." - John 20:17). At that point, the newly-resurrected Christ could not yet be touched by human hands because the presentation of Himself in heaven had to be an offering "without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14). Once Christ had offered Himself, and His blood offering on heaven's mercy seat was legally accepted by God, Christ was then crowned as our "Great High Priest", and consequently God could look upon the disciples as being vicariously pure - no longer a defilement if the disciples touched the glorified, risen Christ.

This is why Christ could allow the women to hold Him by the feet only a short time later when He had left heaven and was back on earth (Matthew 28:9). This is why Christ could encourage the disciples later that day at evening to touch Him and verify that it was He Himself among them (Luke 24:39), because God had just accepted Christ's spotless offering in heaven. From then on, anyone "IN Christ" was covered with Christ's high-priestly representative holiness.

 

[3 Resurrections]

First of all 70 A.D. doesn't qualify as an abomination that made anything desolate, much less the Holy Temple of God--which "that" Temple in Jerusalem at the time was not!

You're right in a sense; it wasn't the AD 70 year that began the desolation. Daniel 9 wrote that it would take "UNTIL THE END OF THE WAR DESOLATIONS (PLURAL) ARE DETERMINED" Desolations by the standing Zealot armies in Jerusalem from AD 66 until early AD 70 caused most of this, even before Rome and Titus arrived finally in the spring of AD 70 to finish things off. The competing Zealot factions brought so much misery and disaster among their own people that Josephus claimed that they were the main cause more than anything else of Jerusalem's fall.

So while according to Josephus, the fundamental cause of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple was God through the abominations of Romans acting out in it and tearing it down,

No. Josephus never said this. He said the opposite: that it was the competing Zealot factions which were the main cause of Jerusalem's eventual fall. Speaking of the Zealot factions in Jerusalem, Josephus said, "Now, while these factions fought one against another, the people were their prey..." And also, "...for they never suffered anything that was worse from the Romans than they made each other suffer...for I venture to affirm, that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition, which it was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls; so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people and the just vengeance taken on them to the Romans..." (Wars 5.6 .1)

You said (and I agree) that scripture should be used to interpret itself. This is also true when it comes to describing what the "abomination of desolation" actually was. Luke 21:20 does that work of interpreting Matthew 24:15 for us. In these duplicate passages where Christ spoke of getting ready for the "days of vengeance", Luke defines the "abomination of desolation" as being "when ye see Jerusalem surrounded by armies". This occurred in AD 66 with the Zealot armies squaring off against the Roman army at Jerusalem. The disciples saw this and consequently fled Judea and Jerusalem for the mountains, as Christ had instructed them to do in great haste. An approximate 1-1/4 million heeded Christ's warning, according to the casualty lists of those AD 66-70 years compared with the AD 66 Passover census in Jerusalem (taken just before those competing armies came to surround Jerusalem and cause its desolations).

It is Christ HIMSELF who is the New building, the cornerstone of their Temple that was rejected and has become head of the corner anyway, and the restoration of stones from every nation. STONES = PEOPLE. Not physical stones. Get it?

Sure. When we speak of the spiritual temple of the New Jerusalem, this is most certainly true today. We ourselves as believers truly are the "living stones" which make up the wall of this temple, built upon Christ the chief cornerstone. But this is the SPIRITUAL reality which replaced the former PHYSICAL temple made of actual carved stones. God physically got rid of that structure to make it obvious that the more glorious spiritual temple had already been established by Him back in AD 33. That true spiritual reality was going to have its paltry idolatrous rivals removed in the AD 66-70 period so that the New Covenant reality could stand alone. "He taketh away the first that He may establish the second".

The Biblical fact is, the Romans didn't make the Temple Desolate by any act they did in it, it was the people of Israel by the acts they did in it.

Yep, you're right, and this was the competing Zealot armies which accomplished this in Jerusalem during those AD 66-70 years. It was these CIVIL WAR conditions within Israel that were the main cause of it downfall. Can we draw a lesson of warning from this for today? Certainly.

 

[parousia70]

At that point, the newly-resurrected Christ could not yet be touched by human hands because the presentation of Himself in heaven had to be an offering "without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14). Once Christ had offered Himself, and His blood offering on heaven's mercy seat was legally accepted by God, Christ was then crowned as our "Great High Priest", and consequently God could look upon the disciples as being vicariously pure - no longer a defilement if the disciples touched the glorified, risen Christ.

However, Hebrews 9 says He was performing that very task at the time Hebrews was written, Long after your proposed "ascension and return":

Hebrews 9:24
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

This would mean that on the resurrection day, He went to Heaven, presented His perfect sacrifice upon the altar of God to be accepted, it was accepted by God then He returned... then, 40 Days later, He ascends AGAIN, presents Himslef as the perfect sacrifice upon the altar of God to be accepted AGAIN, which the writer of Hebrews explicitly says "can not be":

Hebrews 9:25-26
25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Hebrews 9:24
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

This would mean that on the resurrection day, He went to Heaven, presented His perfect sacrifice upon the altar of God to be accepted, it was accepted by God then He returned... then, 40 Days later, He ascends AGAIN, presents Himslef as the perfect sacrifice upon the altar of God to be accepted AGAIN, which the writer of Hebrews explicitly says "can not be":

No, I never said Christ offered Himself multiple times. Once offered, Christ never had to present Himself again. His blood sprinkled on heaven's mercy seat that morning after His resurrection became a perpetual reality that covers our unrighteousness and makes us vicariously holy in our standing before God as His children. Once Christ was anointed by God and crowned as our "Great High Priest" in heaven that morning after His resurrection, His role as representative mediator for the saints became a deathless one after the order of Melchizedek - a high priesthood that never ceases, regardless of where Christ's physical, glorified, resurrected body is located at any given time.

 

[claninja]

No, I never said Christ offered Himself multiple times. Once offered, Christ never had to present Himself again. His blood sprinkled on heaven's mercy seat that morning after His resurrection became a perpetual reality that covers our unrighteousness and makes us vicariously holy in our standing before God as His children. Once Christ was anointed by God and crowned as our "Great High Priest" in heaven that morning after His resurrection, His role as representative mediator for the saints became a deathless one after the order of Melchizedek - a high priesthood that never ceases, regardless of where Christ's physical, glorified, resurrected body is located at any given time.

Christ’s “soul” was in hades following His death.

acts 2:25, 27David says about Him: because You will not abandon my soul to Hades

When we get to verse 31, Peter associated the soul of Christ not being abandoned in hades with the resurrection.

Acts 2:31 Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay.

so, i don’t think Christ’s soul ascended to heaven prior to the resurrection. Unless im confusing your position? Typically there are 2 schools of throught.

1.) Christ ascended to heaven post resurrection.

2.) Christ’s soul ascended at death, the descended at the resurrection, then ascended again 40 days later.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Christ’s “soul” was in hades following His death.

Absolutely, I agree scripture teaches this.

so, i don’t think Christ’s soul ascended to heaven prior to the resurrection. Unless im confusing your position?

You're right, Christ never ascended prior to His resurrection. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that.

1.) Christ ascended to heaven post resurrection.

Yes, He did. And that ascension was immediately after He spoke with Mary saying, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ASCEND unto my Father, and your Father..." (John 20:17).

At that first ascension to the Father, Christ "offered Himself without spot to God", and sprinkled the heavenly mercy seat with His blood, being consecrated by God as a high priest king forever after the order of Melchizedek. He then returned to earth to greet the women on the road early that same morning in Matthew 28:9, and could then allow the touch of human hands clinging to His feet, since His Great High Priesthood was established by then on behalf of His disciples - rendering them legally righteous in God's sight.

It is a fascinating study when one looks at all scripture's recorded details about keeping the body of the crucified Christ ritually clean until He could legally be installed as a spotless high priest that morning in heaven. Even as a dead man lying in a brand new stone tomb, Christ was following the law on our behalf, all the way down to the very last detailed requirement for becoming our blemish-free high priest.

...then ascended again 40 days later.

This one part of the second viewpoint is true also.

 

[claninja]

Absolutely, I agree scripture teaches this.


You're right, Christ never ascended prior to His resurrection. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on that.



Yes, He did. And that ascension was immediately after He spoke with Mary saying, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ASCEND unto my Father, and your Father..." (John 20:17).

At that first ascension to the Father, Christ "offered Himself without spot to God", and sprinkled the heavenly mercy seat with His blood, being consecrated by God as a high priest king forever after the order of Melchizedek. He then returned to earth to greet the women on the road early that same morning in Matthew 28:9, and could then allow the touch of human hands clinging to His feet, since His Great High Priesthood was established by then on behalf of His disciples - rendering them legally righteous in God's sight.

It is a fascinating study when one looks at all scripture's recorded details about keeping the body of the crucified Christ ritually clean until He could legally be installed as a spotless high priest that morning in heaven. Even as a dead man lying in a brand new stone tomb, Christ was following the law on our behalf, all the way down to the very last detailed requirement for becoming our blemish-free high priest.


This one part of the second viewpoint is true also.

Thank you for clarifying. I’m glad we agree that Christs soul didn’t go to ascend to heaven prior to the resurrection of his flesh.

As far as Christ ascending to the father immediately after the resurrection, Your main argument seems to be hinge on the present tense “I am ascending” in John. I don’t think that is strong enough evidence based on John’s uses of present tense verbs to indicate a future action. For example, “I am coming again” is present tense in John 14:3. Was Christ coming again that very day? No. But John used a present tense verb when talking about the future coming again of Christ. I believe it’s the same principle with “I am ascending”

1.) Jesus doesn’t say “i am ascending”. He tells Mary to tell the disciples “I am ascending”

2.) john had other instances of using present tense verbs to indicate futures events, like john 14:3

3.) all other gospel (mark, luke, acts) evidence points to Christ ascending after meeting with the apostles.

4.) argument from silence: there is no clear epistolic teaching that Christ ascended to heaven prior to appearing to the disciples.

That’s just my thought process on it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

4.) argument from silence: there is no clear epistolic teaching that Christ ascended to heaven prior to appearing to the disciples.

Here is where I get my proof that Christ actually did ascend to heaven for the first time immediately after speaking with Mary in John 20:17.

It is found in Psalms 110:3 in the LXX. This entire Psalm is a Messianic one, describing how God installed Christ as our high priest after the order of Melchizedek on His resurrection day, and the results of that. In Acts 2:33-36, Peter agreed with that interpretation of Psalms 110:1 as applying to the day of Christ's resurrection.

Therefore, since this Psalms 110 context is connected prophetically with Christ's resurrection day, we read verse Psalms 110:3 LXX with that understanding. Psalms 110:3 LXX says, "With thee is dominion in the day of thy power" (This is the "dominion", glory, and the high priesthood of the kingdom given to the newly-resurrected Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14) "in the splendours of thy saints:" (those Matthew 27:52-53 saints which Jesus Christ resurrected that same day). "I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE FROM THE WOMB BEFORE THE MORNING." Something was "born" or "begotten" in heaven for the first time before that morning dawned which had never existed there before.

God prophetically mentions that particular day in which Jesus Christ was "BEGOTTEN" in Psalms 2:7, saying, "Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee." Christ became the "First-born" and the "First-begotten of the dead" by being the very first bodily-resurrected human body to ascend to God in heaven and present Himself before the Ancient of Days in that form. And according to Psalms 110:3 in the LXX, Jesus Christ was "begotten" in this manner by God "before the morning".

Now, we are told that Mary came to Christ's tomb "WHEN IT WAS YET DARK" in John 20:1. Seeing the stone rolled back, she ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. Running back with them, she remained weeping at the tomb once they had left. This is when she saw the two messengers in white, and then Jesus Himself. He then told her not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Her mission was to go tell the disciples that "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God", which Jesus did as soon as she had left (John 20:17).

This before-dawn first ascension of Christ was the time ("while it was yet dark" - "before the morning") when Christ as the bodily-resurrected Son of Man was "brought near before the Ancient of Days". He offered Himself "without spot to God", and as our "Great High Priest" sprinkled His life-blood on heaven's mercy seat on our behalf. God accepted this offering, which became the perpetual covering for our sins, imputing Christ's righteousness to us as being "accepted in the beloved".

This is why there is a distinct difference between the body of Christ which could not be handled yet (in John 20:17), when compared to the body of Christ being seen later that morning when they could hold Him by the feet (in Matthew 28:9). Christ's body had to remain ritually pure before He entered into heaven's temple as a spotless high priest offering his blood sacrifice.

 

[oikonomia]

There are a couple of preterist "safe houses" here where prets can post their stuff free of counterposts. However, I KNOW preterism is false, both partial and full. And here's how I know:

My encounter with this attitude has been linited but pretty strong.
And after some reflection I think some of these brothers have a good intention but misaim.

I mean, perhaps what is in the heart of some Preterists is to emphasize the finished work of Christ.
But in their zeal go to an extreme of even treating prophecies yet to be fulfilled as having been finished.

So I am beginning to think that instead of getting into arguments about prophecy, feed them with
the legitimate truths of the past and finished works of Christ.

These matters are the bequeved possessions of the covenant, the will of His new testament.
We are crucified with Christ.
We are bueied with christ.
We are raied with Christ.
We are Christ's thoroughly, His possession, created in Him to walk in good works.

I think thier hunger is for the assurance of things accomplished.
I think the enemy of God twists some of this yearning in their hearts to misunderstand He is also still working.

Please, let's keep this thread free of bunny trails & tangents, & keep it on preterism, either defending it or rejecting it as I do. That's why the last similar thread was closed.

Maybe in my next encounter with a strong Preterist bent will be more being careful not to ge into their ball park.
Rather trying to feed their hungry heart with those precious truths of Christ's finished work.

It appears that they are ready for you. And getting into the debate of fuels them.
This is not easy to do because some are moreinterested in being right than being fed.
We all get into that mode sometimes.

I think sisters who are more subjective and experiential have less a problem with the "being dead right" syndrome.

 

[claninja]

Here is where I get my proof that Christ actually did ascend to heaven for the first time immediately after speaking with Mary in John 20:17.

It is found in Psalms 110:3 in the LXX. This entire Psalm is a Messianic one, describing how God installed Christ as our high priest after the order of Melchizedek on His resurrection day, and the results of that. In Acts 2:33-36, Peter agreed with that interpretation of Psalms 110:1 as applying to the day of Christ's resurrection.

Therefore, since this Psalms 110 context is connected prophetically with Christ's resurrection day, we read verse Psalms 110:3 LXX with that understanding. Psalms 110:3 LXX says, "With thee is dominion in the day of thy power" (This is the "dominion", glory, and the high priesthood of the kingdom given to the newly-resurrected Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14) "in the splendours of thy saints:" (those Matthew 27:52-53 saints which Jesus Christ resurrected that same day). "I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE FROM THE WOMB BEFORE THE MORNING." Something was "born" or "begotten" in heaven for the first time before that morning dawned which had never existed there before.

God prophetically mentions that particular day in which Jesus Christ was "BEGOTTEN" in Psalms 2:7, saying, "Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee." Christ became the "First-born" and the "First-begotten of the dead" by being the very first bodily-resurrected human body to ascend to God in heaven and present Himself before the Ancient of Days in that form. And according to Psalms 110:3 in the LXX, Jesus Christ was "begotten" in this manner by God "before the morning".

Now, we are told that Mary came to Christ's tomb "WHEN IT WAS YET DARK" in John 20:1. Seeing the stone rolled back, she ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. Running back with them, she remained weeping at the tomb once they had left. This is when she saw the two messengers in white, and then Jesus Himself. He then told her not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Her mission was to go tell the disciples that "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God", which Jesus did as soon as she had left (John 20:17).

This before-dawn first ascension of Christ was the time ("while it was yet dark" - "before the morning") when Christ as the bodily-resurrected Son of Man was "brought near before the Ancient of Days". He offered Himself "without spot to God", and as our "Great High Priest" sprinkled His life-blood on heaven's mercy seat on our behalf. God accepted this offering, which became the perpetual covering for our sins, imputing Christ's righteousness to us as being "accepted in the beloved".

This is why there is a distinct difference between the body of Christ which could not be handled yet (in John 20:17), when compared to the body of Christ being seen later that morning when they could hold Him by the feet (in Matthew 28:9). Christ's body had to remain ritually pure before He entered into heaven's temple as a spotless high priest offering his blood sacrifice.

I don’t think that I would agree that your argument is conclusive “proof”.


The ascension is associated with the pouring out of the spirit, no?

“33Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.”

Another example of John using the present tense to indicate a future event. Or do you believe Christ was going to the father at that moment?

John 16:5 5But now I am going (present tense) to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

This very same present tense going away was so that the spirit would be sent:

John 16:7 7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

I still don’t think there is enough evidences to suggest Christ ascended to heaven then came back down the. Ascended again 40 days later

 

[3 Resurrections]

I still don’t think there is enough evidences to suggest Christ ascended to heaven then came back down the. Ascended again 40 days later

Okay, let's try again. When Paul was speaking in the Antioch synagogue to the Jews in Acts 13:32-33, he recounted Israel's history to them. Then he told them of the coming of John the Baptist, forerunner of the prophesied Messiah Jesus that they had crucified. Then Paul declared unto them the glad tidings, "...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." THAT DAY was the day of Christ's being raised up again. THAT DAY was the day when Jesus was "begotten" by the Father in heaven. And He was begotten "BEFORE the morning" on THAT DAY. Jesus was not "begotten" by the Father in the Acts 1 ascension 40 days later. Christ's resurrection day and His ascending to the Father are tied together in the very same time frame.

This is the very same resurrection day / ascension day connection we find in Daniel 7:13-14's prophecy. The Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven and was brought near before the Ancient of Days. At that point, Jesus the Son of Man was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom of everlasting dominion - the everlasting high priesthood of the kingdom over all peoples. This is why Jesus could say to the disciples before His final ascension that ALREADY "All power has been given unto me in heaven and in earth..." How did Christ ALREADY get that power before that point in time? By getting it from the Father that morning when He ascended after His resurrection.

As for the Holy Spirit, it was breathed into the disciples that evening after Christ's resurrection when He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). They did not have to wait until Pentecost for the Spirit to be given to them.

 

[DavidPT]

Okay, let's try again. When Paul was speaking in the Antioch synagogue to the Jews in Acts 13:32-33, he recounted Israel's history to them. Then he told them of the coming of John the Baptist, forerunner of the prophesied Messiah Jesus that they had crucified. Then Paul declared unto them the glad tidings, "...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." THAT DAY was the day of Christ's being raised up again. THAT DAY was the day when Jesus was "begotten" by the Father in heaven. And He was begotten "BEFORE the morning" on THAT DAY. Jesus was not "begotten" by the Father in the Acts 1 ascension 40 days later. Christ's resurrection day and His ascending to the Father are tied together in the very same time frame.

This is the very same resurrection day / ascension day connection we find in Daniel 7:13-14's prophecy. The Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven and was brought near before the Ancient of Days. At that point, Jesus the Son of Man was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom of everlasting dominion - the everlasting high priesthood of the kingdom over all peoples. This is why Jesus could say to the disciples before His final ascension that ALREADY "All power has been given unto me in heaven and in earth..." How did Christ ALREADY get that power before that point in time? By getting it from the Father that morning when He ascended after His resurrection.

As for the Holy Spirit, it was breathed into the disciples that evening after Christ's resurrection when He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). They did not have to wait until Pentecost for the Spirit to be given to them.

While you do make some interesting arguments over all, I still can't picture Daniel 7:13-14 meaning the day Christ rose, rather than when He ascended back to heaven per what is recorded in Acts 1. Both accounts involve clouds. Could Acts 1 be involving a literal cloud? No. Not unless a cloud can receive someone. The text indicates a cloud received Him out of their site. I don't see that meaning the same thing as in a cloud blocked the view of Him out of their site.

The following is the Greek word for 'received' in that verse in question, meaning verse 9 in Acts 1.

hupolambano
hoop-ol-am-ban'-o
from upo - hupo 5259 and lambanw - lambano 2983; to take from below, i.e. carry upward; figuratively, to take up, i.e. continue a discourse or topic; mentally, to assume (presume):--answer, receive, suppose.

 

[claninja]

Okay, let's try again. When Paul was speaking in the Antioch synagogue to the Jews in Acts 13:32-33, he recounted Israel's history to them. Then he told them of the coming of John the Baptist, forerunner of the prophesied Messiah Jesus that they had crucified. Then Paul declared unto them the glad tidings, "...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." THAT DAY was the day of Christ's being raised up again. THAT DAY was the day when Jesus was "begotten" by the Father in heaven. And He was begotten "BEFORE the morning" on THAT DAY. Jesus was not "begotten" by the Father in the Acts 1 ascension 40 days later. Christ's resurrection day and His ascending to the Father are tied together in the very same time frame.

This is the very same resurrection day / ascension day connection we find in Daniel 7:13-14's prophecy. The Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven and was brought near before the Ancient of Days. At that point, Jesus the Son of Man was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom of everlasting dominion - the everlasting high priesthood of the kingdom over all peoples. This is why Jesus could say to the disciples before His final ascension that ALREADY "All power has been given unto me in heaven and in earth..." How did Christ ALREADY get that power before that point in time? By getting it from the Father that morning when He ascended after His resurrection.

As for the Holy Spirit, it was breathed into the disciples that evening after Christ's resurrection when He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). They did not have to wait until Pentecost for the Spirit to be given to them.

“Begotten” has to do with the resurrection, so I’m not really following you. And in all honesty it’s not really addressing my counter argument.

Your primary argument, initially, was that John wrote “I am ascending” in the present tense, Therefore you believe Christ ascended that very day.

The problem with that, is that John often used present tense verbs to denote a future events. John 16 has at least 2 examples alone where Christ said he is going to the father in present tense multiple days prior to His resurrection. So why would John 20:17 be understood in that same way?

John 16:5 5But now I am going (present tense) to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

John 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving (present tense) the world and going (present tense) to the Father.”

In regards to John 20:22, I don’t think we should interpret that in a vacuum. I think it should be understood prophetically and In line with the following passages that all agree the spirit was poured out on Pentecost after Christ ascended. Christ simply breathed on them and said “receive the spirit”. I don’t think we have to conflate that with the disciples being given the spirit at that very moment. It’s kind of like in Luke, where Christ opened their minds to the scriptures, but told them to wait in Jerusalem for the receiving of the spirit.

John 7:39 He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given,e because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

John 16:7 7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

Luke 25:49 49And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 2:33 33Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing

 

[3 Resurrections]

“Begotten” has to do with the resurrection, so I’m not really following you. And in all honesty it’s not really addressing my counter argument.

Apologies for not being clear enough in my argument. Of course, as you say, "Begotten" has to do with the resurrection (that being the resurrection day in particular.) These Psalms 2:7-9 verses prophesied about God speaking directly to the ascended Son. This is when He was "brought near" before the Ancient of Days and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that very day (Daniel 7:13-14).

This was a face-to-face conversation taking place in heaven; the very day that God anointed Jesus as a high priest king upon Zion, the hill of His holiness. The Lord said unto the Son, "Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession...". This is why Jesus could tell the disciples even BEFORE His final ascension in Acts that "All power has been given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations..." (Matthew 28:18-19). Christ could claim that He already had been given power over the nations even before His final ascension because God had told Him directly face-to-face in heaven on His resurrection day that He was to ask God for this as His inheritance.

My belaboring this point of a resurrection-day ascension may seem off-topic to the OP theme, but it's not. I have encountered Full Preterists that are quite adamant that Jesus's resurrected body was abandoned in His ascension, and that from then on, He became a Spirit being only. If I can prove from scripture that Jesus ascended that resurrection day and then returned to earth to encounter the disciples that day in the very same resurrected flesh-and-bones body, that proves their theory wrong on this point.

Some of them claim that Jesus's body which came out of the sepulchre was not His glorified body. That is also false, since the giving of the Holy Spirit by Christ breathing it into the disciples on His resurrection day (John 20:22) proves that Jesus's body was already in a glorified condition at that point (by comparing this verse with John 7:39 which times Jesus's glorification before the giving of the Spirit).

The Holy Spirit was given to the disciples on that resurrection day at evening, but it came with an explosion of observable power on all flesh at Pentecost with the gift of speaking different languages to the people gathered in Jerusalem for the feast. Those sign gifts were an added public confirmation that the New Covenant had just replaced the Old Covenant. But it does not mean that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the disciples before then.

 

[claninja]

Apologies for not being clear enough in my argument. Of course, as you say, "Begotten" has to do with the resurrection (that being the resurrection day in particular.) These Psalms 2:7-9 verses prophesied about God speaking directly to the ascended Son. This is when He was "brought near" before the Ancient of Days and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that very day (Daniel 7:13-14).

This was a face-to-face conversation taking place in heaven; the very day that God anointed Jesus as a high priest king upon Zion, the hill of His holiness. The Lord said unto the Son, "Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession...". This is why Jesus could tell the disciples even BEFORE His final ascension in Acts that "All power has been given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations..." (Matthew 28:18-19). Christ could claim that He already had been given power over the nations even before His final ascension because God had told Him directly face-to-face in heaven on His resurrection day that He was to ask God for this as His inheritance.

My belaboring this point of a resurrection-day ascension may seem off-topic to the OP theme, but it's not. I have encountered Full Preterists that are quite adamant that Jesus's resurrected body was abandoned in His ascension, and that from then on, He became a Spirit being only. If I can prove from scripture that Jesus ascended that resurrection day and then returned to earth to encounter the disciples that day in the very same resurrected flesh-and-bones body, that proves their theory wrong on this point.

Some of them claim that Jesus's body which came out of the sepulchre was not His glorified body. That is also false, since the giving of the Holy Spirit by Christ breathing it into the disciples on His resurrection day (John 20:22) proves that Jesus's body was already in a glorified condition at that point (by comparing this verse with John 7:39 which times Jesus's glorification before the giving of the Spirit).

The Holy Spirit was given to the disciples on that resurrection day at evening, but it came with an explosion of observable power on all flesh at Pentecost with the gift of speaking different languages to the people gathered in Jerusalem for the feast. Those sign gifts were an added public confirmation that the New Covenant had just replaced the Old Covenant. But it does not mean that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the disciples before then.

No worries, and thanks for clarifying.

The OT prophets often combined multiple events into seemingly single days, ie “that day”. ANE culture used block logic, and often grouped things together, in their poetic writings, by purpose, and not necessarily chronological order. As such, I’m not personally convinced that the ascension and resurrection occurred on the same day from interpreting an oracle from the psalms.

So going back to the gospel of John.

1.) I have provided multiple instances where John used a present tense verb to denote a future event, two of those involving Christ stating he is presently going to the father in john 16. Thus Christ stating he is presently going to the Father in john 20, doesn’t necessarily mean he is going that same day.

2.) I have provided multiple passages that state the spirit would not come until Christ had left. The spirit being poured out 10 days after Jesus ascended.

3.) there is no clear epistolic teaching that Christ rose, ascended, descended, ascended again, and poured out the spirit (I am aware this would be an argument of silence/ignorance).


The gospel narrative is pretty basic: Christ died, rose 3 days later, ascended forty days after the resurrection , the spirit was poured 10 days after the ascension.

 

[3 Resurrections]

2.) I have provided multiple passages that state the spirit would not come until Christ had left. The spirit being poured out 10 days after Jesus ascended.

The manifestation of the MIRACULOUS SIGN GIFTS of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh is not the same thing as the indwelling Spirit itself being given to a person. Your position would deny that Christ breathed the Spirit into the disciples that resurrection day at evening in John 20:22. "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" is about as clear as you can get. Your position would also lead to the deduction that anyone today not manifesting any of the miraculous sign gifts are individuals who do not have the Spirit dwelling within. This is untenable.

3.) there is no clear epistolic teaching that Christ rose, ascended, descended, ascended again, and poured out the spirit (I am aware this would be an argument of silence/ignorance).

It is absolutely clear that Christ claimed in Matthew 28:18 to have ALREADY been given all power in heaven and on earth even BEFORE He ascended that final time in Acts 1. This kingdom power MUST have been given to Him at His first ascension on resurrection day, or else why did He claim to have been given that power already? God had already anointed His high priest king upon His holy hill of Zion as Psalms 2 prophesied, even before Christ finally ascended in Acts1. That was an anointing of Christ that had to take place in heaven's temple - not on earth.

 

[claninja]

The manifestation of the MIRACULOUS SIGN GIFTS of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh is not the same thing as the indwelling Spirit itself being given to a person. Your position would deny that Christ breathed the Spirit into the disciples that resurrection day at evening in John 20:22. "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" is about as clear as you can get. Your position would also lead to the deduction that anyone today not manifesting any of the miraculous sign gifts are individuals who do not have the Spirit dwelling within. This is untenable.

It is absolutely clear that Christ claimed in Matthew 28:18 to have ALREADY been given all power in heaven and on earth even BEFORE He ascended that final time in Acts 1. This kingdom power MUST have been given to Him at His first ascension on resurrection day, or else why did He claim to have been given that power already? God had already anointed His high priest king upon His holy hill of Zion as Psalms 2 prophesied, even before Christ finally ascended in Acts1. That was an anointing of Christ that had to take place in heaven's temple - not on earth.

1.) None of this addresses your original premise of John 20:17 and my counter arguments to that specific argument of the “present tense”. You seem to continually avoid that.

2. The spirit was poured out on Pentecost. I do not interpret John 20:22 in a vacuum. I understand John 20:22 prophetically In the same way that Christ opened the mind of the disciples to understand scriptures and charged them to wait in Jerusalem until they receive the spirit (luke 24:45-49). Additionally, John states multiple times that the spirit wouldn’t come until Jesus had gone away and was glorified (John 7 and 16), so I again, don’t agree with your interpretation, nor your illogical conclusion that this somehow means I don’t believe people are in dwelled with the HS.

3.) I believe Christ was given all authority in heaven and on earth in association with his death, resurrection, and ascension. I don’t think this means that Christ had to ascend the very same day as his resurrection

 

[3 Resurrections]

1.) None of this addresses your original premise of John 20:17 and my counter arguments to that specific argument of the “present tense”. You seem to continually avoid that.

I'm not avoiding that as ONE of the possible interpretations. The other interpretation is that Christ actually WAS about to ascend to the Father moments after speaking with Mary. The reason why I believe this other is the proper interpretation is that Christ forbad Mary to touch Him ("TOUCH ME NOT...") because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Later that same day at evening, Christ was not only permitting the touch of the disciples, but He was boldly telling them, "HANDLE ME, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39).

Something changed between Christ telling Mary NOT to touch Him, and later on when Christ tells the disciples "HANDLE Me..." Even earlier that morning, the women who met Christ on the road were permitted to HOLD Christ by the feet without Him forbidding this (Matthew 28:9). I believe that particular "something" which changed in between those different encounters was Christ then ascending to heaven that day.

It all had to do with Christ fulfilling the proper requirements under the law for the anointing and the actions of a high priest. Christ went to great lengths to observe every minute detail to keep Himself pure so that He could be anointed in heaven that day to serve in that role. The touch of Mary's hands, no matter what the reason, would have rendered Christ unclean at that moment and unfit to become our Great High Priest before He offered His blood sacrifice that morning on heaven's mercy seat.

#1) A high priest could not touch a dead body at all, or he would be rendered unclean and unfit to perform his duties that year (Leviticus 21:10-11). Christ was buried in a tomb "where never man before was laid" (Luke 23:53), so that the glorified body of the rising Christ would not touch the remains of a dead body of another person as He came out of that sepulchre.

#2) Rock or stone was the material needed to preserve purity of its contents, which is why Christ was not buried in an earthen grave but in a sepulchre "hewn out in the ROCK" (Matthew 27:60). When absolute purity was required, STONE vessels for holding water for purifying hands were used, as at the wedding in Cana when Christ turned water into wine.

#3) A high priest could not rend his clothes (Leviticus 21:10). At the crucifixion, the soldiers cast lots for Christ's raiment instead of dividing it among them, leaving Christ's clothing intact, as was required for a high priest.

#4) A high priest could not drink wine just before he went into the tabernacle of the congregation (Leviticus 10:8-90, Ezekiel 44:21). This is probably why Christ refused to drink the wine mingled with myrrh before His crucifixion (Mark 15:23). After His resurrection, He was going to enter the heavenly temple and be anointed as our high priest, and by Levitical law, He could not drink wine or strong drink before He did this.