Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[parousia70]

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.

The rub in your “do not touch me” event that you are hanging your hat on, is in the Greek.

John 20:17 NKJ
"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'

The greek for "Cling" or "Touch" here is "Haptomai" which means:
to fasten one's self to, adhere to, cling to.

This is not a simple finger extended "touching" Christ being described here, this is Mary seeing the risin Christ and CLINGING to Him.

Jesus tells her not to Cling to Him, in effect because Both He and She had important work yet to do. They would have an eternity to cling to eachother, but Christ effectively told her to "let go" at that point because there was yet unfinished business they both needed to attend to.

He was not telling her to avoid making any physical contact with Him at all, rather He was saying "let go of me so we can both get to work."

Clearly, since He was touched by Thomas later that day, WELL BEFORE the one and only ascention recorded in scripture, Mary certainly could have, and indeed likely did, Touch Him as well. Nothing in scripture prevents this.

The notion you are hanging your hat on, that a human being simply extending a finger and touching the risen Christ before he ascended would somehow instantly negate and nullify the work He did on the cross is untenable and unsupported by any scripture.

Christ asended to the Father once, and it is recorded for us at the beginning of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The greek for "Cling" or "Touch" here is "Haptomai" which means:
to fasten one's self to, adhere to, cling to.

This is not a simple finger extended "touching" Christ being described here, this is Mary seeing the risin Christ and CLINGING to Him.

When it comes down to it, the definition in Greek for either "cling" or "touch" is an immaterial one. The point is that Christ at that moment forbad Mary this contact (of whatever manner it was), but later on that same morning He did NOT forbid this contact with Himself. The REASON He gave for NOT having this contact was that He had not yet ascended. Yet later on that same day He is TELLING His disciples to have this contact with Him. The difference between these occasions must therefore be that Christ had ascended by then.

I'm not sure why this is such an objectionable point for you. Is there some doctrinal reason you stand by which absolutely requires that no other ascension could have occurred before Acts 1? I'm asking in all seriousness. In your view, what doctrine is corrupted by having a resurrection-day ascension?

 

[claninja]

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.

if you want to get into the OT law, one could also argue it takes 7 days to ordain a high priest (exodus 29:35), and so Jesus was touched by no one for at least 7 days. This still wouldn’t require Jesus to ascend to heaven the same days as the resurrection.

Exodus 29:35 Thus you shall do to Aaron and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded you. Through seven days shall you ordain them

John 20:26 26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

If it took 7 days to ordain a high priest, Christ couldn’t have ascended to heaven prior to the completion of the ordination. this would also explain why Mary could not touch Jesus, but Thomas could, eight days later.

 

[3 Resurrections]

if you want to get into the OT law, one could also argue it takes 7 days to ordain a high priest (exodus 29:35), and so Jesus was touched by no one for at least 7 days. This still wouldn’t require Jesus to ascend to heaven the same days as the resurrection.

There was one critical difference between those high priests and Christ. Jesus did not need to offer multiple sacrifices to cleanse Himself for being consecrated as a high priest, since He was already without sin, making Him the perfect sacrifice as well as the perfect high priest. As Hebrews 7:27 made the distinction..."Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

Jesus went through all the OT rituals of examination for the perfection required of the blemish-free Passover lamb. Even Pilate declared no less than three times (Luke 23:22) that he found no fault in Him. As a second witness, Herod did the same (Luke 23:15). In the mouth of two or three witnesses, this truth of Christ's perfection was established publicly.

The OT stipulation for the high priest on the Day of Atonement was that no one was to be in the tabernacle of the congregation as he entered the holy of holies. This eliminated physical contact with anyone at that critical point (Leviticus 16:17) "And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, UNTIL HE COME OUT, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel." After coming out of the holy of holies, apparently physical contact was then okay, once atonement terms had been met and satisfied within that holy place.

This is exactly what was being pictured by Christ forbidding any physical contact with Mary just before He went into heaven's temple as God's anointed high priest in that "true tabernacle not made with hands" and completed the Atonement process that day of His resurrection.

 

[claninja]

There was one critical difference between those high priests and Christ. Jesus did not need to offer multiple sacrifices to cleanse Himself for being consecrated as a high priest, since He was already without sin, making Him the perfect sacrifice as well as the perfect high priest. As Hebrews 7:27 made the distinction..."Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

Bingo! Christ definitely is not like the earthly high priests, and so getting really specific with the OT law doesn’t always work, because the law was CHANGED when Christ became high priest (Hebrew 7:12).

1.) Christ would not be a high priest on earth. Instead he became high priest when he ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand.

Hebrews 8:4 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law

Hebrews 8:1 1Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.

2.) and just as Christ died ONCE FOR ALL, and NOT multiple times, he also ASCENDED ONCE FOR ALL.

Hebrews 7:27 27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption

Christ entered heaven ONCE FOR ALL. There is no mention of Christ entering heaven multiple times post the resurrection.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Christ entered heaven ONCE FOR ALL. There is no mention of Christ entering heaven multiple times post the resurrection.

No, that is not quite the language used in that verse. It says Christ "entered once for all into the HOLY PLACES" in heaven. That was heaven's temple and its holy places. I have already agreed that Christ was OFFERED only once for all to achieve eternal redemption for the children of God. But that is not the same as Christ being able to ascend to heaven and descend to earth multiple times after His resurrection. To ascend to heaven multiple times is not the equivalent of Christ being offered multiple times in the holy place of heaven's temple.

For one example of another ascension, Christ was prophesied in Zechariah 14 to return to earth and stand on the Mount of Olives, when His angels would gather all the resurrected righteous to Himself. This was promised to the disciples, that Christ would come again and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also". This involved Christ ascending to heaven again, accompanied by those resurrected ones who would meet Him together in the air, and ascend to heaven along with Him. That ascension to heaven would have nothing to do with Christ being "OFFERED" another time in the holy places of heaven's temple.

 

[claninja]

No, that is not quite the language used in that verse. It says Christ "entered once for all into the HOLY PLACES" in heaven. That was heaven's temple and its holy places. I have already agreed that Christ was OFFERED only once for all to achieve eternal redemption for the children of God. But that is not the same as Christ being able to ascend to heaven and descend to earth multiple times after His resurrection. To ascend to heaven multiple times is not the equivalent of Christ being offered multiple times in the holy place of heaven's temple.

For one example of another ascension, Christ was prophesied in Zechariah 14 to return to earth and stand on the Mount of Olives, when His angels would gather all the resurrected righteous to Himself. This was promised to the disciples, that Christ would come again and "receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also". This involved Christ ascending to heaven again, accompanied by those resurrected ones who would meet Him together in the air, and ascend to heaven along with Him. That ascension to heaven would have nothing to do with Christ being "OFFERED" another time in the holy places of heaven's temple.

I really don’t know what you mean here. Hebrews is pretty clear christ entered heaven ONCE FOR ALL, and not multiple times like earthly high priests.

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

There are zero passages that say Christ entered heaven multiple times.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There are zero passages that say Christ entered heaven multiple times.

Not exactly. There are zero passages that say Christ entered multiple times into the holy places in heaven's temple to make an offering for sin.

There's a temple in heaven. Moses made a copy of it for the tabernacle on earth by the pattern he was shown on the Mount.
Hebrews 8:2 writes about this heavenly temple where Christ our high priest intercedes for us - "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man..."
Revelation 14:15 & 17 speaks of this heavenly tabernacle. "And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud...And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven..."
So does Revelation 15:5. "And after that I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened..."
It is also described in Revelation 11:19. "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament..."

This separate temple location of "holy places" in heaven is where Christ entered only one time to make an offering for sin. But this does not limit Christ from being able to ascend and descend multiple times from earth to heaven. Heaven is not composed completely of this temple. That heavenly temple is only part of heaven.

 

[claninja]

Not exactly. There are zero passages that say Christ entered multiple times into the holy places in heaven's temple to make an offering for sin.

There's a temple in heaven. Moses made a copy of it for the tabernacle on earth by the pattern he was shown on the Mount.
Hebrews 8:2 writes about this heavenly temple where Christ our high priest intercedes for us - "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man..."
Revelation 14:15 & 17 speaks of this heavenly tabernacle. "And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud...And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven..."
So does Revelation 15:5. "And after that I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened..."
It is also described in Revelation 11:19. "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament..."

This separate temple location of "holy places" in heaven is where Christ entered only one time to make an offering for sin. But this does not limit Christ from being able to ascend and descend multiple times from earth to heaven. Heaven is not composed completely of this temple. That heavenly temple is only part of heaven.

The earthly temple’s “holy places” = a copy of heaven. Christ entered not the earthly holy places but heaven:

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”

He did this ONCE FOR ALL:

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

the heavenly temple = heaven = God’s throne. A little Hebrew parallelism demonstrates this:

Psalm 11:4 The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD is on His heavenly throne.

Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.

You have to really stretch and split hairs to claim Christ went to heaven on the day of the resurrection, but not heavens temple, then descended, and ascended to again to heavens temple.

maybe I’m missing something? Were sacrifices made in the holy places or in the outer court?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You have to really stretch and split hairs to claim Christ went to heaven on the day of the resurrection, but not heavens temple, then descended, and ascended to again to heavens temple.

That's not quite what I wrote. I wrote that on the morning after His resurrection, Christ ascended with the clouds of heaven and was "brought near" before the Ancient of Days (as in Daniel 7:13-14). At that point of "offering Himself without spot to God" (as in Hebrews 9:14), He was anointed to be our "Great High Priest" over heaven's temple. Then the anointed Christ, acting in His new role as our High Priest, took His blood sacrifice inside the "holy places" of heaven's temple, and sprinkled the mercy seat with it, providing eternal redemption for us. Christ does not need to either be anointed as high priest again or to make another offering for sin, because once was enough for all time.

Then, (according to the pattern laid out in Leviticus 16:17 for the OC high priesthood emerging from the holy of holies to meet the people of the congregation on the Day of Atonement) Christ came out of the holy places of heaven's temple to prove to those on earth that His sacrifice had been accepted by God. At that point, it was permissible for Him to have physical contact with the people of God on earth again, since His blood sacrifice had been accepted in heaven's holy places of the temple, and God could look on believers from then on as vicariously holy.

maybe I’m missing something? Were sacrifices made in the holy places or in the outer court?

For the Day of Atonement in the OC, it was only once a year in the Holy of holies, showing what Christ would do for us "once for all". This Day of Atonement offering of sprinkled blood had to be made in the holy of holies only - not in the outer court. The blood of the sacrifice was shed and poured out at the base of the altar in the outer court, but a bowl of it had to be physically carried by the high priest within the Holy of holies to sprinkle the mercy seat. If the high priest emerged from out of the holy of holies alive, this proved to the people waiting outside that God had accepted the sprinkled blood. Christ returning to earth that morning after His ascension is what proved to the disciples that God had accepted the perfect sacrifice in the "holy places" of heaven's temple on their behalf.

 

[claninja]

That's not quite what I wrote. I wrote that on the morning after His resurrection, Christ ascended with the clouds of heaven and was "brought near" before the Ancient of Days (as in Daniel 7:13-14). At that point of "offering Himself without spot to God" (as in Hebrews 9:14), He was anointed to be our "Great High Priest" over heaven's temple. Then the anointed Christ, acting in His new role as our High Priest, took His blood sacrifice inside the "holy places" of heaven's temple, and sprinkled the mercy seat with it, providing eternal redemption for us. Christ does not need to either be anointed as high priest again or to make another offering for sin, because once was enough for all time.

Then, (according to the pattern laid out in Leviticus 16:17 for the OC high priesthood emerging from the holy of holies to meet the people of the congregation on the Day of Atonement) Christ came out of the holy places of heaven's temple to prove to those on earth that His sacrifice had been accepted by God. At that point, it was permissible for Him to have physical contact with the people of God on earth again, since His blood sacrifice had been accepted in heaven's holy places of the temple, and God could look on believers from then on as vicariously holy.

For the Day of Atonement in the OC, it was only once a year in the Holy of holies, showing what Christ would do for us "once for all". This Day of Atonement offering of sprinkled blood had to be made in the holy of holies only - not in the outer court. The blood of the sacrifice was shed and poured out at the base of the altar in the outer court, but a bowl of it had to be physically carried by the high priest within the Holy of holies to sprinkle the mercy seat. If the high priest emerged from out of the holy of holies alive, this proved to the people waiting outside that God had accepted the sprinkled blood. Christ returning to earth that morning after His ascension is what proved to the disciples that God had accepted the perfect sacrifice in the "holy places" of heaven's temple on their behalf.

The problem with this, is that what you propose is not found in the NT. Hebrews proclaims christ entered the holy places “once for all” in Hebrews 9:12, with 9:24 telling us that heaven = the holy places not built by man.

It seems that because the Bible so closely associates the resurrection with the ascension, you are trying to show multiple ascensions. This seems like trying to fit western philosophy into ANE block logic.

For example, in Hebrews, the author states when Christ died for our sins, he sat down at the right hand. This almost sound like the same day if we interpret in a vacuum.

Hebrews 10:12 2But when Christb had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

There is no teaching that clearly states Christ ascended multiple times to heaven post the resurrection.

 

[parousia70]

When it comes down to it, the definition in Greek for either "cling" or "touch" is an immaterial one. The point is that Christ at that moment forbad Mary this contact (of whatever manner it was), but later on that same morning He did NOT forbid this contact with Himself. The REASON He gave for NOT having this contact was that He had not yet ascended. Yet later on that same day He is TELLING His disciples to have this contact with Him. The difference between these occasions must therefore be that Christ had ascended by then.

Nothing in the do not touch or do do not cling statement requires Jesus gave it before being touched or clinged to.
There is nothing in the text that mandates he was not simply saying “let go of me now and go tell my friends”

I'm not sure why this is such an objectionable point for you. Is there some doctrinal reason you stand by which absolutely requires that no other ascension could have occurred before Acts 1? I'm asking in all seriousness. In your view, what doctrine is corrupted by having a resurrection-day ascension?

I already pointed it out.
Such a position as yours, which is a which is an argument from silence, renders Hebrews 9 invalid and incorrect, which is untenable.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is no teaching that clearly states Christ ascended multiple times to heaven post the resurrection.

Christ's ascension back to heaven with the resurrected saints according to the 1 Thessalonians 4 rapture IS describing a post-resurrection ascension.

For example, in Hebrews, the author states when Christ died for our sins, he sat down at the right hand. This almost sound like the same day if we interpret in a vacuum.

Hebrews 10:12 2But when Christb had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

I don't know how to say this without it sounding profane, but...
Christ's backside was not super-glued to the throne at the right hand of God in heaven. Stephen the martyr saw the glorified Christ standing on the right hand of God. John also saw behind him the glorified Christ standing in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, who spoke to him, and also touched him with His right hand. Christ then summoned John in the Spirit to "come up hither" and see heaven's visions. The glorified, resurrected body of Christ can move from one realm to another without losing his permanent status as our Great High Priest.

The problem with this, is that what you propose is not found in the NT. Hebrews proclaims christ entered the holy places “once for all” in Hebrews 9:12, with 9:24 telling us that heaven = the holy places not built by man.

The "holy places" are IN heaven's temple. The temple is IN heaven, meaning the temple is only part of heaven itself. This is most definitely found in the NT, according to all the texts I gave you just above in comment # 1,128. There is more to heaven than just its temple with its "holy places" inside. Heaven does not equal the "holy places not built by man. Heaven CONTAINS the "holy places not built by man".

I only keep belaboring this point because the Full Preterists I have encountered also insist on the same idea that Christ did not ascend until Acts 1. They claim that after that one-and-only ascension, Christ never emerged from heaven's holy of holies until AD 70, making the full Atonement for sin unfulfilled until that year. That idea is totally false. The one-time-for-all atonement was fulfilled at Christ's resurrection-day ascension and offering for sin in heaven's temple. The proof that God had accepted this perfect blood offering that morning was in Christ COMING OUT OF the temple of heaven's holy places and back to earth again. Under the OC type, this is what proved to the people waiting outside on the Day of Atonement that God had accepted the offering of sprinkled blood on the mercy seat on their behalf - when the still-living high priest CAME OUT OF the Holy of holies (Leviticus 16:17).

 

[claninja]

Christ's ascension back to heaven with the resurrected saints according to the 1 Thessalonians 4 rapture IS describing a post-resurrection ascension.

this is not a clear passage about Christ ascending multiple times between the resurrection and ascension at Pentecost.

The "holy places" are IN heaven's temple.

Heaven = the holy places of which the earthly tabernacle was a copy.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

 

[Andrewn]

I only keep belaboring this point because the Full Preterists I have encountered also insist on the same idea that Christ did not ascend until Acts 1.

This is what all Christians believe. Christ's spirit ascended to Paradise within 24 hours of his crucifixion as he promised the thief on the cross. But He ascended bodily to heaven 40 days later.

They claim that after that one-and-only ascension, Christ never emerged from heaven's holy of holies until AD 70, making the full Atonement for sin unfulfilled until that year. That idea is totally false.

This is a strange concept. The full Atonement was fulfilled on the cross.

The one-time-for-all atonement was fulfilled at Christ's resurrection-day ascension and offering for sin in heaven's temple. The proof that God had accepted this perfect blood offering that morning was in Christ COMING OUT OF the temple of heaven's holy places and back to earth again. Under the OC type, this is what proved to the people waiting outside on the Day of Atonement that God had accepted the offering of sprinkled blood on the mercy seat on their behalf - when the still-living high priest CAME OUT OF the Holy of holies (Leviticus 16:17).

As I said, Christ ascended spiritually to Paradise as He had promised the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." This happened before the angel moved the rock to announce Christ's resurrection.

 

[claninja]

This is what all Christians believe. Christ's spirit ascended to Paradise within 24 hours of his crucifixion as he promised the thief on the cross. But He ascended bodily to heaven 40 days later.


This is a strange concept. The full Atonement was fulfilled on the cross.


As I said, Christ ascended spiritually to Paradise as He had promised the thief, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." This happened before the angel moved the rock to announce Christ's resurrection.

The spirit going back to God is something that occurs to everyone, even before Christ died on the cross.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Christ was in hades after his death and before the resurrection

Acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

 

[Andrewn]

The spirit going back to God is something that occurs to everyone, even before Christ died on the cross.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

We know from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that not all spirits go back to the same place. Ecclesiastes is a poetic rather than a theology book. It says:

Ecc 3:19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same ruah, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity.20 All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.21 Who knows whether the human ruah goes upward and the ruah of animals goes downward to the earth?

If you translate ruah into "spirit," you get an obvious theological problem. Humans and animals have the same spirit? And we don't know whether human spirit goes upward and animal spirit goes downward? Clearly this is not correct biblical teaching and it is best to translate ruah into "breath." Then we come to the verse you quoted:

Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the ruah returns to God who gave it.

In agreement with the NRSVue, ruah should be translated as "breath." The breath returns to God. Ecclesiastes is not a theology book. It does not describe the "spirit." Otherwise, we have a theology that is akin of Buddhism and is nowhere supported in the Bible. Again, refer to the parable of Rich and Lazarus.

Christ was in hades after his death and before the resurrection

Acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Yes, 1Pe 3:18-19 clearly describes the descent of Christ's spirit into Hades.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for our sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but raised to life in the spirit. 19 In the spirit also he went to preach to the spirits in prison,

Christ's spirit was not abandoned to Hades but rather, accompanied by those who were saved from Hades, ascended into Paradise.

Luk 23:43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Eph 4:8 Therefore, it is written,

“When he ascended to the heights,
he took prisoners into captivity
and gave gifts to men.”
9 Now the word “ascended” implies that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth.

 

[parousia70]

Eph 4:8 Therefore, it is written,

“When he ascended to the heights,
he took prisoners into captivity
and gave gifts to men.”
9 Now the word “ascended” implies that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth.

If you are appealing to this passage to support this view, it does not mean what you think it does.

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry with some fine scholarship on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands."

The "captivity" that Christ "lead away captive" were His defeated enemies, and not the saved souls in Hades.

Resurrection is the ONLY vehicle by which the saved dead are RAISED from Hades into the Heights of Heaven. That does not happen, indeed CAN NOT HAPPEN, until 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 and Revelation 20:12-15 are FULFILLED.

 

[Andrewn]

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them

According to Psalm 68:18, "You received gifts among men so that even among the rebellious the LORD God might dwell." The image of rebellious people paying a ransom is apparent here and corresponds with your interpretation and Matthew Henry's.

But in Eph 4:8-9, "He gave gifts to men." This is a very different prospect. Jesus has no intention of shaming people and gloating over them. And I don't see how the Lord bound Satan and took him up to heaven!!

However, I do see how your interpretation is not uncommon. So I do not insist on my view of Eph 4:8-9, and this does not affect the conclusions I posted in message # 1137 anyway.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This is a strange concept. The full Atonement was fulfilled on the cross.

That's not what Paul said. He wrote that "if Christ be NOT RAISED, your faith is in vain: ye are yet in your sin." (! Corinthians 15:17). It took Christ's resurrection to help fulfill the Day of Atonement sacrifice. And it took Christ's ascension to the Father in heaven that day along with his return to earth to prove to the disciples that the atonement sacrifice He had offered in heaven's temple had been accepted by God the Father.