| Author | Message | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 51 Registered: 12-2003 |
I would like to ask for any input anyone might have on Jesus ascension after his ressurection. An sda relative is telling me that Doug 'Botchelor' (aptly named by Susan2) has cleared up the matter of Jesus going directly to the Most Holy Place. She says that he says that Jesus went up to the Father, was seated at his right hand to be coronated (thus recieving his kingdom) and then returned to earth for the next 40 days to visit with the disciples. He uses John 20:17 to substantiate this (Jesus telling Mary not to hold him as he hasn't yet gone to his Father). Thus, Doug claims that when Jesus initially went to heaven he entered the most holy place as stated in Hebrews. When he returned to heaven the second time he THEN entered the outer sanctuary to begin his ministry (as claimed by sdaism). I am wondering what mainstream Christianity belives regarding Jesus ascension - was it twice or only once when the disciples saw him go up in the clouds. Either way, it doesn't matter to me as it has nothing at all to do with my salvation. I get so annoyed with the way sda's come up with new twists on scripture to attempt to validate the existence of 'the movement'. Thanks for any insight you all can give me. In Christ, Spokenfor | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1186 Registered: 11-2002 |
I have never heard this directly discussed in a Lutheran setting. I believe it is not discussed because it is taken as a given that Jesus asscended into heven and is sttting at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living aand the dead. This is how we recite it in the Apostle's Creed and this is how it is understood. That understandig of Jesus traveling back and forth between here and heaven is only made up so they can work their Investigative judgement doctrine into it. No other denomination teaches the IJ so they wouldn't have to make up the story about Jesus going back and forth so often. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1041 Registered: 12-2003 |
Christians understand Jesus to have ascended to His Father one time as described in Acts 1 and to have been seated at His Father's side from then on. Doug is just manipulating Scripture in order to validate Ellen White. There is absolutely no scriptural support for two ascensions, and there is certainly no support for the idea that he has been in a different "compartment" from God the Father who is in the Most Holy Place. that's just nonsense! Praise God for giving us Scripture and leaving His Spirit to teach us! Colleen | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thank you Susan and Colleen for clarifying this issue for me. I didn't think there was support for two ascensions but wasn't sure if I'd missed something. I agree that the whole IJ theory is absolute nonsense. I get so weary of this on going attempt to 'prove' adventism by my friends and family who are trapped there. I guess it never ends.... | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 159 Registered: 10-2004 |
There are a couple of big problems with Botchelor's theory. First, Hebrews says that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place to stay not just for a little while. Also, Hebrews says that Jesus was currently in the Most Holy Place when the book of Hebrews was written. So it's just more Annoying Fiction that is completely unbiblical. Jeremy | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2004 |
So, Jeremy, are you suggesting that Jesus did not assend to his father at all until the 40 days after his resurrection were over? I'm not trying to dispute, I just had understood that somehow he did go to heaven for at least some time before the assencion from the Mount of Olives. I guess I'll have to look into why I thought that! helovesme2 | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 117 Registered: 7-2004 |
I thought the same thing, Helovesme2. Right after the resurrection Jesus told Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father. Later He appeared to the disciples when Thomas was around and told Thomas to put his hand in His side--it was certainly okay to touch him. If it was okay then, logic would say He must have ascended to His Father between the time He talked to Mary and the time He showed up when Thomas was with the other disciples. Is there another explanation, or does it matter? That explanation is what I've always heard in SDAism, and since it looked that way to me in the Bible, I had no reason to question it. Of course that has nothing to do with when Jesus went to the Most Holy Place to minister. Hebrews is crystal clear on that. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 56 Registered: 8-2004 |
Exactly Raven! Whether Jesus went to see His Father during the 40 days or only at the end of it does not change the plain teaching of Hebrews! helovesme2 | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 53 Registered: 12-2003 |
Those are interesting points - I went back and read John 20:17 where Jesus tells Mary not to hold on to him, it also says that he told her to go and tell the disciples that he was going to his father and their father. What do you think he meant by that? I agree that Hebrews is very clear on where he went so it remains irrelevant in that respect. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 242 Registered: 7-2004 |
He Loves Me, I am not Jeremy (admittedly, he is more knowledgeable and probably cuter than me!  But, I have a few more years on him, if that counts for anything!)..but..here's why I believe that Jesus was here on earth forty days until His ascension to sit (past and present tense) at the right hand of His Father in Heaven: ACTS 1: 1 - 3 -- Luke wrote: "In my former book (the book of Luke)...I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach UNTIL the day He was taken up to heaven after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles...He showed Himeself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." Now look at what Luke describes as "convincing proofs" in Luke 24: 13 - 49. He is pretty thorough in listing out the details following Jesus' resurrection. In the list of "proofs", there is not one mention of ever going to Heaven after His resurrection and before He began His last 40 days of ministry on this earth. As far as I can see, Mr. Botchler (misspelling intended) has an interesting theory but nothing more since the Word of God does not back it up. Hope that helps! | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 615 Registered: 7-2003 |
Raven, if you look at non-KJV of that John 20;17 passage, the "do not touch" is translated as "do not hold on", "cling to me". So, it's not so much "don't touch" but a long embrace type meaning. I heard another pastor who knows the original languages, and maybe Chris or Dennis or one of our other fine greek students can give some insight on the fuller meaning of that text, but it doesn't support an intermediate ascension given what the rest of scripture does say. You can't build a doctrine on the vague when there are more clear statements to answer the question. Mr. botch just doesn't have the context to back up his suppositions. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 57 Registered: 8-2004 |
DD & Melissa, I agree that Mr Batchelor's theory does not stand up to scripture. Hebrews is clear. I don't think anyone was trying to defend it. I just had thought that Jesus did see His Father at some time before the Assension. I do agree that you cannot build a doctrine on vaguaries when there are clear answers! Thank you for sharing the texts you did! I look forward to digging deeper into it! helovesme2 | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 480 Registered: 7-2003 |
Melissa, you are correct. The tranliterated Greek is "hapto". It means "to fasten to, to lay hold of". The NASB translates it as "clining" as does the NKJV and nearly all other modern translations. To make his rather dubious point, Batchelor is relying on the 1611 KJV which says "cling" which is probably a poor translation in this context. I believe that a very loose paraphrase of what Jesus is saying here is, "You don't have hold onto me for dear life Mary becasue I'm not going back to my Father quite yet. Instead of clinging to me you can go and tell the disciples that I will be returning God the Father." I see nothing in this texts to suggests to ascensions. Having said all this, whether or not Jesus was ever in the very prescence of His Father during the 40 days after the resurrection is really beside the point. Even if you could show such a thing from scripture, it really doesn't save the whole anti-gospel IJ mess, nor does it make sense of the SDA belief in two literal compartments in a literal building in Heaven, not does it get you to 1844. There is a word for all of this: "eisegesis" And I think we could rightly modify it with an adjective: "extreme eisegesis" Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 481 Registered: 7-2003 |
Uh...that should read: "The NASB translates it as "clinging"....." | ||
| Vchowdhury1 Registered user Username: Vchowdhury1 Post Number: 94 Registered: 7-2004 |
And on another point, remember at the stoning of Stephen? Just before he died, Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God...This kind of "squashes" the sda theory that Jesus did not go into the Most Holy Place until 1844. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 483 Registered: 7-2003 |
Man, I just had all kinds of errors in my post....the really bad kind that completely change the meaning.....if I would ever learn to proof read.... (sigh).... Since I bungled this so badly, let me try and clarify what I meant before I inserted all the wrong words: The NASB says "clinging" and most other modern translations say "cling" or "hold". The 1611 KJV says "touch" "cling" or "hold" are better translations in this context than "touch". Sorry about the goofs. Chris | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 289 Registered: 10-2001 |
I also was taught that Jesus ascended to leave the blood at the mercy seat and then came back for 40 days. I was told that was why Mary couldn't touched him as He said He wasn't glorified yet or He had not yet ascended to the Father. I thought it refuted the SDA theory of Jesus not applying the blood to the mercy seat yet, and they say it is a future event, as if He is going to bleed again?? Also John 2:13 was said to be a foreshadow of this event of cleansing the temple. Guess we need to study this out some more. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1044 Registered: 12-2003 |
I've never heard the idea of Jesus ascending to the Father before his ascension recorded in Acts 1 anywhere but in Adventism. Jesus' shed blood is eternal. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. God brought Jesus back from the dead "through the blood of the eternal covenant" (Hebrews 13:20). Inside time, Jesus had to die before mankind could be reunited with God through the indwelling Holy Spirit. But the certainty of His blood being applied to the mercy seat was eternal. When Jesus died, it "was finished". He didn't have to ascend privately to apply His blood to the mercy seat; that application happened when He shed it. Further, Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." While we're not told exactly what happened during the hours of Jesus' death, we do know He committed His spirit into the Father's hands. His Spirit went to the Father then. As Dd explained above, Acts 1:1-4 clarifies Jesus'40-day ministry on earth before His ascension. Chris's explanation of the true meaning of the Greek word which the KJV translates "touch" is the explanation I have also heard of the passage where Jesus asks Mary not to detain or cling to him. It suggests the meaning of not desperately holding onto Him as if she would lose Him again. Clearly Mary did touch Him, and Thomas touched him. He was in a resurrection body, but His full glorification happened after he ascended 40 days later and was seated at the right hand of the Father. His admonition to Mary was not about waiting for Him to be glorified or about somehow applying His blood. It seems, in context, to be about asking her to release Him because He still had time to be here, she would see Him again, and He had work to do before he went to the Father. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 160 Registered: 10-2004 |
I have not thought about whether Jesus ascended twice or not very much recently, but whether He did or not does not change the points I made in my above post. Whenever He did enter the Most Holy Place (which is not a literal compartment) it was to stay, according to Hebrews. Jeremy | ||
| Spokenfor Registered user Username: Spokenfor Post Number: 55 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thank you again Colleen for the clear and thorough explanation - your insight is invaluable. I like the point you made that Jesus' spirit went to the Father when he died -- in which case what would have been the point of him going back again with his risen body, only to return to earth a few hours later? Yes, it's plain that when Jesus did ascend he entered God's presence to stay. |
