So much in just four words, "Do not touch Me"?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bob Ryan SDA
Christ’s argument at the moment of resurrection, John 20:17, is that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied. ... God the Father and God the Son have conducted the execution of the plan of salvation in a way that is public and formal as we see in Daniel 7 “the court sat the books were opened.... myriads and myriads were in attendance”.

The “Court of heaven” is something God uses to proclaim both his love and His justice. As we see even in the case of Job 1 and 2 God allows for objections to be raised and official verifiable evidence to be presented in those “Court of heaven” contexts. What’s the point of creating intelligent beings like the Angels if He is going to continually revert to a “trust me and don’t think this one through” solution? In fact what is the point of 6000 years of sin and suffering on earth if there is nothing here being “demonstrated” or “proved”? Why not simply “snip Lucifer out of existence” prior to his tempting one single loyal angel? Better yet - why not “redirect Lucifer’s cycle of thought” before he even knows he is thinking about questioning God and save God the death of His son? It shows an “extreme degree of integrity and accounting” with God that he takes NONE of those shortcuts.

Ed Sutton
The “presentation” of the Son to the Father was physical, as well. One could get sidetracked here, I guess, by relying on a translation or translations that render Jesus’ words to Mary as “Do not ‘touch’ me...”, I guess, but that is a less than ideal rendering here, IMO. I suggest that the NASB is much clearer, here, in this rendering of John 20:17: 17, Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Jn.20:17. A short time after the encounter with Mary, Jesus was “held by his feet” (Mt. 28:9), and he specifically said to the disciples to “Handle Me and see...” (Lk. 24:39), less than 24 hrs, by any reckoning, of the encounter with Mary, and later, ‘commanded’ Thomas to place his hands into Jesus’ side. (Jn.20:27)


The point was not “to avoid any ‘physical contact’“, at all, in His words to Mary, but rather to announce that His work was of a greater scope, than Mary was realizing. He was no longer going to be here, ‘physically’ in the presence of Mary, in the manner in which she had known, and He was telling her this, in so many words.


By no stretch, am I ever presenting what can even be remotely constrained as “another ‘gospel’“, in any manner, whatsoever, for I have no intention of having any such near me, just as you say, as well.


Gerhard Ebersöhn
Thank you, Ed Sutton. This is how I too, feel; especially where you say, ‘His work was of a greater scope and Jesus was telling her this’.

Bob Ryan SDA
You have exactly nailed the reason that Christ does not focus on “The work he was doing while dead” [insinuating GE] -- His argument at the moment of resurrection is that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.

And as you note - this must have been done by the time He meets with Thomas but had not been done when Mary met him. The point is not that “Christ is not God or does not know something” the point is that God the Father and God the Son have conducted the execution of the plan of salvation in a way that is public and formal.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE
Ed Sutton’s and the NASB’s ‘Stop clinging to Me’ is far better than “Do not ‘touch’ me”. However, what about the most obvious ‘interpretation’ or ‘observation’ possible? Even according to just the English of the KJV, Mary never as much as touched Jesus! From where then the idea she ‘clung’ to Him, but Jesus said, No? From where too, Bob Ryan’s idea Jesus needed still to obtain presence with the Father? That’s the crux of the matter! Rather the text and context create no impression Jesus tried to prevent Mary to touch Him, but that He commissioned her to go straight on and proclaim the Gospel to his disciples that Christ in being raised had obtained that by which God was now God and Father of both Himself and them! A finished salvation that would rule out a future and still ongoing atonement— here’s the ‘point’ or ‘argument’, as Bob Ryan has called it, Jesus wanted to make with saying, “Do not stay here with me (don’t hesitate, don’t linger), for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and tell them (when I ascend), I ascend to my Father (who through my resurrection has become) your Father too, and to my God, (who by my resurrection has been made) your God as well.” Prophecy has been fulfilled in Christ in resurrection from the dead, having made peace: It says, “He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” Mal4:6 -- the very last words of the Old Testament!

This New Relationship had been accomplished by the resurrection and in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; it meant
Completed Redemption, Perfected Salvation, full and final,
made and established once for all! Now the Seventh Day Adventists claim it is not even begun with “... at the moment of resurrection”, but that Christ “... does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval” before He could begin with making ‘final atonement’!

According to the literal Greek, one may visualise the following:
Mary leans over (parékypsen) in order to look into the tomb, sees two angels, converses with them, then all in one movement “she these things saying turned around / back / away from” the opening, “tauta eipousa estrafeh opisoh”, “and saw Jesus standing not knowing that it was Jesus. Said Jesus to her, Woman, why do you cry? Whom are you looking for? That one (Mary) thinking He was the gardener, asked Him … Answered Jesus her, Mary!”

Then the interesting part: As Jesus spoke to her, Mary, while she recognised Him, apparently shocked, “turning” – “strafeihsa”, “called out, Master!” --- her back to Jesus her head bent low in awe and amazement, her hands covering her eyes? While Mary stands in this posture, Jesus commands, “Don’t stay with Me, for not yet am I gone to My Father, so go to my brethren and tell them (while I’m still with you), that I shall go to the Father who (now that I am risen) is my Father and your Father, my God and your God!” ‘I have availed; I have created the New Brotherhood; my work is finished. This is your message to tell them; go now! I have obtained entrance into the innermost sanctity of the Presence of the Father – where I was raised by the Glory of the Father and obtained your sonship and Mine own, and from Him got his official sanctioned approval that the Law is fully satisfied.

“Stop clinging to Me” is therefore a figurative command that should not be understood for literal nor by the nature of its case could be misunderstood for literal, but is a command that should be understood for its implying and requiring the accomplishment and completion of God’s ultimate Purpose in Christ in having raised Him from the dead (“The exceeding greatness of His Power which He worked when God raised Christ from the dead”). Christ had to “go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied” – humanly speaking – before the Father would have quickened Him from the dead in the first place!

That approval Jesus had had obtained, the moment he died,
“After this, Jesus knowing that all things now were accomplished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (and the Law (be) fully satisfied and vindicated), saith, I thirst.” The ‘separation’ here, was complete, completed and, therein and therewith, was ended! “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar” of the ‘second death’ in all its bitterness, and have emptied the cup He had to drain to the dregs, “He said, Finished!: and He bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” Jn19:28-30. Now this was how Jesus “gave up the ghost” with His very last Word of Life, spoken, there and then: “When Jesus cried with a loud voice, He spoke: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, He gave up the ghost” to Him his Father. Lk23:46. Now is His Life hidden in God; until “The God of Peace” the Father “through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant” of Peace, “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus” and “Prince of Peace”, “For He hath said, I will never leave Thee”, and Christ believed Him, and said, “I will not fear what man shall do unto Me”. Hb13:20, 5-6.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Instead of the *separation* the Seventh Day Adventists contend for, the Word presents Divine Union and Re-Union even in the dying moment of Jesus on the cross. This Re-Union all through the death of Christ in the grave worked from and worked towards, springs into vibrant Life like a buried seed bursting into daylight, “When suddenly in Sabbath’s fullness midst of daylight ... there was a great earthquake for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door”. That was the angel from heaven’s part. It needs not be said when suddenly in Sabbath’s fullness midst of daylight ... the Father, descended, from heaven, and came, and “awakened” and “quickened” His Son “from the dead”, and “resurrected” Him “Christ and Lord”, “in the Glory of the Father”. It needs be believed! The Father, “from heaven”; his Son, “from the dead”. It needs be believed!

But, here is the Abomination of Desolation standing in The-Holy-Temple-of-God’s-Immediate-Presence-in-and-of-the-resurrection-of-Jesus-Christ-from-the-dead: one concept!— here is it: “His argument at the moment of resurrection is that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied. And as you note - this must have been done by the time He meets with Thomas but had not been done when Mary met him.”

Jesus had no “argument at the moment of resurrection ... that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.” Besides it not now was “the moment of resurrection”, besides it now for all purposes or needs being too late ‘to go before the Father to get the official sanctioned approval’, Jesus ‘at the moment of His resurrection’ “In the Sabbath’s fullness”,
already had had gone before the Father and
already had had made that official presentation whereby He
already had had got “the official sanctioned approval
from the Father that the law is fully satisfied”.
That ‘official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied’ was, yea,
already had had been, Jesus’ very resurrection from the dead.

To deny this absoluteness is to deny and blaspheme against Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and instead place the abomination of desolation standing in the Most Holy Temple in heavenly places of Almighty God’s Presence and Glory. Because denying it, also denies and blasphemes against Christ’s finished work of atonement and reconciliation, the bringing together again of God and sinners in Christ, the heart of the Father and the heart of the sons, where and when having died He also rose from the dead again, having wrought “official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The ‘ascending’ (‘anabainoh’) of Jesus is not his

1) ‘Exaltation’: ‘epairoh / hyperairomai’; ‘hypsos / hypso-oh / hyperypso-oh’; or, his
2) ‘Seating’: ‘kathisas < ‘kathehmai / ‘kathidzoh’’: Rv4:2; Eph1:20b; Hb1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; or, his
3) ‘Glorification’, ‘docsa / docsadzoh / endocsas / endocsadzomai / kauchehma / kauchaomai / katakauchaomai / kleos /’.

‘Seating of Him’: to the right hand of the throne of God “in heavenly places” of glory, already attained “When God raised Christ from the dead and set Him at His Own Right Hand”, Eph1:20.

The SDAs confuse these different things for one and the same, Jesus’ ‘ascending’-‘anabainoh’. Had Jesus not already through resurrection from the dead been glorified “far above every name that is named” (21), He would not have been able or allowed after, to ascend, to his Father. “For if He were on earth, He should not be Priest at all!” Hb8:4a. “Even as-I-overcame-and-am-set-down with my Father in his throne”, Rv3:21b. Read 1Jn5:20-21. “He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”, being an Infinitive of Noun force, says, Christ’s resurrection was that of His ‘sitting down’ or ‘being set’ upon God’s throne at once, Acts 2:30; “He (David) seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ”, 31a. Jesus assures the vain disciples when they asked to “sit on thy right hand” “in thy glory”, that they by the baptism or death He would die and be raised from again, in fact would, Mk10:37-39. Paul says, “Buried with Him in his baptism wherein ye are also co-raised with Him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised Him from the dead.” Col2:12. “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved and hath raised us up together with Him, andmade us sit together in Christ Jesus in heavenly places.” Eph2:4-6.

His resurrection was where and when Christ “sat” down in His Glory. Christ “sat” down in His Glory where and “when God raised (Him) from the dead ... by / in the Glory of the Father”, Eph1:20, Ro.6:4. “In that He liveth, He liveth unto / equal with God ... death hath no more dominion over Him”; “Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more”— and no more maketh atonement— He hath dominion over death, Ro.6:9-10. Therefore before He ascended to the Father, Jesus confirmed that already, “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth”. Mt28:18b— “is given” since the moment of his having been resurrected. “Christ who dying, rather who rising— rather who is at the right hand of God, (is Christ) who indeed maketh intercession for us.” Ro.6:8:34. Christ’s ‘making intercession’ became possible by virtue of and followed upon his having been exalted “at the right hand of God ... having died – rather, in having been raised”— not a few hours or forty days after having died and having been raised, but once and for all, simultaneously “when God raised (Him) from the dead ... by / in the Glory of the Father”. “For as the Father has life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself, and hath given Him all authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man”. Glorious Being since through resurrection having triumphed over death and grave (Jn5:26-27), this is the exaltation of Jesus Christ His ‘gift’, awarded in Victory by Victory; not later or afterwards. “The hour is now!”— the moment of Christ’s resurrection from the dead (25a).

Putting it one twinkling of an eye after, puts Christ’s exaltation, perfection and anointment outside of Christ’s resurrection, and “after the Sabbath on the First Day of the week” according to the antichrist corruption of the Times and Laws of God— Seventh Day Adventist-style and Seventh Day Adventists eagerly under bondage in collaboration with antichrist, illustrated amply by Bob Ryan’s affirmations of vanity.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The lame man healed of Acts 3 is a figure of Christ in his exaltation. God took Christ by the right hand and lifted Him up: “and immediately” He entered into the Temple of the Glory of God, and received strength and all power in heaven and in earth. Like as to us God “… saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light”, Eph5:14, so God said to Christ, ‘Awake Thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and I shall give Thee light.’ God waited not, but as soon as “He raised his Son from the dead, even Jesus who delivered us from the wrath to come”, 1Thes1:10, so He set Him in the light of His Presence. “God that raised (Christ) up from the dead and gave Him glory that your faith and hope might be in God.” 1Pt1:21.

Only for his disciples’ sake and so that the Scriptures should be fulfilled did Jesus after his exaltation at and in and because of his resurrection from the dead, remain on earth another forty days. It never meant that Jesus first had to ‘ascend’ in order to be ‘exalted’, honoured and glorified, or that His ‘ascension’ was his ‘exaltation’. It never meant “... that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied”! That ‘presentation / offering’, Christ had had made while having been raised from the dead “First Sheaf Wave Offering before the LORD”, and that dignity He had already earned and received, in recompense for having finished atonement for sin in dying, through and in and by and with, resurrection from the dead, from death, and from the grave. Postponing Jesus’ ‘presentation’ or exaltation one minute or eighteen hundred and fourteen years, cannot better the lie in itself; it keeps on robbing Christ of His glory and ‘official sanctioned approval from the Father’ that He received through and in resurrection from the dead and nowhere and no how else. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should (have) taste(d) death for every man. For it became Him (God), for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make (have made) the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” “It became Him”— it was God’s Glory— “in bringing unto glory” of ‘perfection’ “many sons”, in “Jesus (whom) we see … crowned with glory and honour”. We see Jesus here in the rising of His from the death of His partaking in— not in his ascension to his Father forty days later or whenever after. Herein is Christ’s and the Glory of God: “But now Christ become the Firstfruits of them that slept is risen from the dead.” 1Cor15:20. The risen Christ and He “in bringing many sons unto glory” in and with Himself is all the Glory and the whole Glory of the Father, in whose Glory Christ was raised from the dead. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption (sufferings); it is raised in incorruption (glory).” 1Cor15:42. There is no division, no separation, of resurrection and glorification and exaltation of Jesus Christ at God’s “own right hand in heavenly places”. If, no matter how fractional divorced from or postponed to after Jesus’ resurrection, God’s works are not perfected or finished; atonement for sins, is not wrought; denial of the resurrection of Christ in fact follows. It is blasphemy against God to maintain. “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1Cor15:17). It is blasphemy against God if Christ be raised, to maintain ye are in your sins yet because Christ’s “argument at the moment of resurrection is that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.” All that Faith receive from Christ through resurrection from the dead— all abundance of Grace— forfeited unless afterwards and later – maybe even hundreds of years after and later – to officially get sanctioned approval from the Father! Blasphemy! because, “If Jesus had given them rest, God would not after these things speak of another day”, Hb4:7-8, of mercy or obtainment of forgiveness of sins. Blasphemy against God, “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame”, Hb6:6.

The Glory of God is the Rest of God, even Christ having made reconciliation for sins through resurrection from the dead. “God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake: And God the Seventh Day from all His Works, rested.” In that Christ was raised “In Sabbath’s fullness”, God in having ended making atonement, rested in the Son. God postponed not his rest or glory a single day or forty days or eighteen hundred and fourteen years. Mary touching Jesus on the First Day of the week, could have had no influence; was not able to deter; the works of God were perfected in Christ, through Christ, and His glorification and exaltation and ‘official sanctioned approval’ gained and granted, in the resurrection of Him from the dead and the grave. The Father had had been present in all His Glory in Christ the while He finished all the works of his Father in Victory over death and sin through resurrection from the dead. “But now Christ risen from the dead become the Firstfruits of them that slept”, is Christ in Glory of Exaltation the Glory of the Father. “Yea, and we are found false witnesses (of the Glory) of God because we have testified (of the Glory) of God that he raised up Christ whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not” with Him and in Him where and when and as He rose from the dead. (1Cor15:15) The glory of the Father by which He raised up Christ from the dead is Christ who rose from the dead, incorruptible, exalted and glorified with and in and as that official presentation and official sanctioned approval from the Father at the right hand of the Almighty in His Holy Temple in its utter Holiest, “immediately”— that is, in being raised up from the dead: in the acme of His Power and glory whereby God raised up Christ from the dead— no one moment in time or of time later or after, but for eternity after, once and for all.

Thus “Christ came in the flesh”. He who deny, denies that Jesus is the Christ; he who deny, is, antichrist. The Church that deny, is antichrist. Not even the Roman Catholics deny! Who that deny remain, but the Seventh Day Adventist Church?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bob Ryan
“Christ does not focus on “The work he was doing while dead”.”
... But you SDAs are! You say He ‘rested in the tomb’. You say, Jesus by ‘resting in the tomb’, “obeyed the Commandment”; you say Jesus by ‘resting in the tomb’, sanctified the Sabbath. Now are these the works of God, yes or no?! Is God’s rest, an act of His, or are these acts of Jesus, God ‘doing nothing’? God ‘doing nothing’ not even is a logically possible concept; what being the thing God in Christ was resting in the grave thereby sanctifying the Sabbath!

Bob Ryan’s words, “Christ does not focus on “The work he was doing while dead”” ... are the words never of GE: but the precise words of the very Bob Ryan himself: “The work he was doing while dead”. Ja, indeed the precise act and responsibility of the very Bob Ryan, who put these words and this FALSITY between the teeth of GE. But, as sometimes – almost always truth can be found in and from the mouth of satan himself – the precise words, “The work he was doing while dead” do in fact contain truth! For again, Christ, even in the tomb and interred and “while dead”, like His Father no moment is found indulgent, passive, doing nothing! Even while, in and through being dead and interred, the Christ with the Father, work victory over grave and death. He – They – work on still, not having reached the utmost height yet; ‘They’ – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – ‘energise’ still in Almighty Achievement ... until from the dead, until from death, and until from the grave, God raised Christ, Triumphator and Victor, until Christ– “as God” Hb4:10c – “enter into His Own Rest”, because not only is God’s Victory over death grave and sin ‘spiritual’, it also is bodily and temporary— in space and time, ‘three-dimensional’: reality that also includes time, and therefore, is Christ’s “resurrection from the dead”, “according to the Scriptures”. So did the Son of God, “finish the works of (His) Father”— not “The work he was doing while dead”, but while and in being resurrected from the dead and death and grave; to put what I have said in proper perspective, and rescue it from Seventh Day Adventist distortion.


Further absurdities and blasphemies of the SDA position

Bob Ryan SDA
You have exactly nailed the reason that Christ does not focus on “The work he was doing while dead” [insinuating GE] -- His argument at the moment of resurrection is that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.

And as you note - this must have been done by the time He meets with Thomas but had not been done when Mary met him. The point is not that “Christ is not God or does not know something” the point is that God the Father and God the Son have conducted the execution of the plan of salvation in a way that is public and formal.

GE
Bob Ryan is insinuating that I claim Jesus’ resurrection as such was “The work he was doing while dead”. This is Bob Ryan’s words and method of avoiding the issue, which in this case was, and still is, that I said God raised Christ from the dead, and that Christ, in rising from the dead “by the glory of the Father”, ‘entered into the full fellowship of the Trinity’ (the words of Klaas Schilder). This is what Bob Ryan says I say, is “The work he (Christ) was doing while dead”. Fine; I said it and I maintain.

Instead ... if that, would not be ‘the work He was doing while dead’? ... then instead, Bob Ryan has Jesus’ ‘argument’ – “His argument at the moment of resurrection...”.
Now consider Jesus’ ‘argument’ (according to Bob Ryan the Seventh Day Adventist) “at the moment of resurrection”
— consider and ask, Was this the ‘moment-of-resurrection’? No, it was after it.

But for argument’s sake, say, it was “his argument at the moment of resurrection”, then, Jesus’ “argument at the moment of resurrection is ...”, the following: “... that he does need to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied”! Then this “need to go” and this “mak(ing) that official presentation” and this “to get the official sanctioned approval”, belong to “the moment of resurrection” as much as Jesus’ “argument is ... at the moment of resurrection”
— so that everything ‘is at the moment of resurrection’, and nothing of it is after ‘the moment of resurrection’, so that Bob Ryan is plainly contradicting and destroying his own ‘argument’. So that Bob Ryan unwittingly and unwillingly is saying just what I am saying, that Jesus, in rising from the dead, entered into the full fellowship of the Trinity. Because it would be only in the full fellowship of the Trinity that Christ could go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied! Exactly what actually happened and exactly when actually it happened when, and as, and in that, Jesus was ‘resurrected’ and by the Father and in the Glory of the Father, was ‘resurrected’!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

But my aim is not to expose Bob Ryan’s fallacy which might seem callow, but if one knew him and the Adventists, will know is callous as hard as rock. Because his ‘argument’ comes from, and goes to ‘proving’ the Father’s absence at the resurrection of Christ. If there had been one period of time God was God without the Second Person of the Godhead, it would be from Jesus died until He rose from the dead and grave again. In fact, this is exactly what they teach!

(Questioner) “If divinity cannot die, does this suggest that Jesus’ nature at death split, and that his humanity died but not His divinity?
(Bille Burdick) “Yes... essentially this is exactly what it says. … If we apply that to one member of the Godhead, then it becomes clear that the only thing that can happen to one of the Trinity … is that there would be a *separation* between the members.... such that they are no longer ONE in their being.” (Emphasis by bold GE)


The Adventists teach, very authoritatively (Ellen G. White), that Jesus died “as man” – not as God, “for that cannot be”. Despite, one of their opinion makers, Bille Burdick of above, desperately tried this one, God’s, for them, ‘only option’,
“But by becoming a human... God could, by the dual nature of His incarnation, die as a man, but survive as God... and give life back to the man he was... finally demonstrate in a way all the watching universe could understand, the very basic difference between the created order and the Creator”! SDANet 19 May 2008. (Bold and underline, GE) Notice “all the watching universe”-stuff, just like Bob Ryan’s ‘Lucifer’-stuff.

When faced with the same dilemma, another of their great thinkers, Leroy Moore, reminded the questioner who asked, “Who resurrected Jesus?”, that Mrs E. G. White said He was called from the grave by ‘the angel’, but was careful enough to add: ‘After all Jesus was God’ (– from which the questioner should draw his own conclusion – only Leroy Moore won’t say it out loud or he might be heard). Now if not Jesus died being God, how could He take up his life again, while being not God? So their – theirs, I say – ‘only alternative’ would be that God the Father ‘resurrected Jesus’. But ask them, Was Jesus resurrected by the Father? And they evade the answer and innovate thousands of reason why the Father could not have resurrected Jesus.

Because “there would be a *separation* between the members”, the Father could not be present to raise Jesus up again. See, When He died, the Father left Jesus in the state of ‘the second death’ of complete separation from God. The Seventh Day Adventists place that *separation* after Jesus’ ‘physical’ death. They place it in the state and within the confines of Jesus’ ‘physical’ death, so that at the end of ‘physical’ death, they’re stuck with their dilemma of Who raised Christ from the dead? I must have asked them that question at least a thousand times; to this day they could not give answer. Because they will not succumb to truth, that the Father raised the Son in His very immediate and intimate Glory! Because if they did consent, it’s tickets with their ‘investigative judgment’ phantasm and they stand ashamed in the eyes of all religious hoi polloi.

That is why Bob Ryan’s pathetic explanations hide much more than they admit.

It is not simply a matter of an hour or so taken opportunity of for Jesus to quickly “go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied. And (that) this must have been done by the time He meets with Thomas but had not been done when Mary met him.” It is Bob Ryan’s deceitful foolery to make his questioners fail to see the deeper and greater scope of Seventh Day Adventist error in it. It is Seventh Day Adventism’s deceitful foolery to make honest seekers for truth fail to see ‘His work was of a greater scope and Jesus was telling her this’.

Even casually glanced at, Bob Ryan’s presentation here shows reckless negligence. “...this must have been done by the time He meets with Thomas but had not been done when Mary met him” ... What about the other women to whom Jesus before He met with Thomas, appeared? Mt28:9, by whom actually He was “held by the feet”? that created the shorter space of time within which Mrs White squeezes her ‘gift-reception’ session ‘in heaven’ into? Bob Ryan knew better than ‘the servant of the Lord’ to give Jesus a little more elbow room in time; he extended his ‘gift’-interval to the appearance to Thomas.

Then again a little more time is gracefully granted the Lord, and He is allowed by the Seventh Day Adventists under auspices of Mrs White a full thirty nine days more before He could “go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.”


No sooner had the Seventh Day Adventists decided, Halt! He is not even High Priest yet, and only serves as Divine though ordinary Priest in the ‘First Room’; He must wait until such time as we shall have determined for Him, 1844, to enter into the Holiest, and only then can He begin office of High Priest “to go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.”

Wait! Wait! We have forgotten! He had to have come again first, before we give Him thousand literal earthly years in heaven to show the universe God after all is just – for Him to “go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied”. The point is this must be done after the thousand years, but had not been done when He was resurrected.

These are not my blasphemies; if they are blasphemy they are the blasphemies of their creators, who are not I, but the Seventh Day Adventists. And blasphemies they are of the coarsest kind.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Then again a little more time is gracefully granted the Lord, and He is allowed by the Seventh Day Adventists under auspices of Mrs White a full thirty nine days more before He could “go before the Father and make that official presentation - to get the official sanctioned approval from the Father that the law is fully satisfied.” This eidolon contradicts and vanquishes itself in that Jesus thus entered twice into the presence of the Father: Why a second time if not the first availed; and why if successful and ‘gifted’ (DA chpt.9,§10,14) the first time, a next? Where do we find in Prophecy the Christ had to enter in, twice?

Mrs White has this wonderful explanation ready: After He appeared to Mary and “After He had ascended to the Father”, and before “Jesus appeared to the other women”, she says, “While the Saviour was in God’s presence receiving gifts for His Church”. Jesus with his first attendance in the Father’s presence, “receiv(ed) gifts for His Church”— not for Himself! “The same Jesus had now – “based on Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12” – gone to share His Father’s throne... There is the throne... cherubim and seraphim... are eager to... glorify their King. But He waves them back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of the Father ...” (DA chpt.13,§8) Only here and only now Christ received ‘gifts’, “the coronet of glory and the royal robe”, for Himself. Clever! Too clever! Blasphemously clever!

 

[EdSutton]

"Ah 'on't get it!"

And your point in all this above stuff is...??

Well, outside of finding a good and convenient excuse to express your disdain for some Seventh Day Adventist interpretation (which group FTR, I am in no way connected with or even remotely sympathetic to, here), that is!

Ed

 

[billwald]

If Mary was hanging on Jesus the transporter would have grabbed both of them. <G>

 

[LeBuick]

If Mary was hanging on Jesus the transporter would have grabbed both of them. <G>

Excuse my ignorance, who is the transporter?

 

[EdSutton]

Excuse my ignorance, who is the transporter?

I dunno'!

But:

"Beam me up, Father!"

"Then beam down the Holy Spirit!"

somehow just doesn't sound quite right to me, either. :laugh:

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

I dunno'!

But:

"Beam me up, Father!"

"Then beam down the Holy Spirit!"

somehow just doesn't sound quite right to me, either. :laugh:

Ed

I don't know half the time what either of you are saying. I personally believe as the High Priest in olden times passed through the second veil and made the atonement for the sins of the people, that Jesus did present to the Father the atonement for sin, for all men. God has that atonement now and in order for anyone to receive it, they must believe. For future generations to be able to receive that atonement, the Father must have it, so as "God adds to the church daily, such as should be saved". So, to receive, we must believe. The atonement is there, but we do not receive it without belief. No great thing for Jesus to go before the Father in a moment.

One thing for sure, something took place from the time He told Mary not to touch Him and later when they were all able to touch Him. There is a reason for that scripture "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father".

The Law was a shadow of things to come, including the High Priest passing through the second veil to make the atonement. Jesus Christ was not a shadow, but the "real" thing.


BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

I dunno'!

But:

"Beam me up, Father!"

"Then beam down the Holy Spirit!"

somehow just doesn't sound quite right to me, either. :laugh:

I don't know half the time what either of you are saying.

[Sigh!!] (Bolded and enlarged to show that it is a heavy sigh)

Brother Bob, this was a humorous response.

Read the entire thread thru (assuming you don't get overtaken by nausea while reading what, IMO, Gerhard Ebersoehn has put together and 'written' for the purpose of getting in a 'free shot' at some Seventh Day Adventist teachings), then note the post #10 of billwald where he mentions "the transporter"; think about "Star-Trek" and Captain Kirk's famous supposed line of "Beam me up, Scotty!" (which line, incidentally, was never spoken in either the series or the movies), and you should then "get it".

I personally believe as the High Priest in olden times passed through the second veil and made the atonement for the sins of the people, that Jesus did present to the Father the atonement for sin, for all men. God has that atonement now and in order for anyone to receive it, they must believe. For future generations to be able to receive that atonement, the Father must have it, so as "God adds to the church daily, such as should be saved". So, to receive, we must believe. The atonement is there, but we do not receive it without belief. No great thing for Jesus to go before the Father in a moment.

One thing for sure, something took place from the time He told Mary not to touch Him and later when they were all able to touch Him. There is a reason for that scripture "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father".

The Law was a shadow of things to come, including the High Priest passing through the second veil to make the atonement. Jesus Christ was not a shadow, but the "real" thing.

Of course. I basically agree fully with this, and in fact, my original comments in this post in another thread were part of what was 'slashed and glued' together in the OP, here, of Gerhard Ebersoehn.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1205836&highlight=clinging#post1205836

The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ apparently ascended to the Father to make His presentation, as the His Great High Priest, (Heb. 4:1-10:25) between the time of the encounter with Mary early on that resurrection morning, (Jn. 20:11-17) and only shortly later that same morning, when the women did, in fact, 'touch Him', in that they actually "held Him by the feet". (Matt. 28:9) Read the passages to see that Mary Magdalene was one who then "held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him".

Did Jesus change His mind, about this?? Hardly! I just happen to think there are two possible answers here (which do not contradict each other, BTW), in that perhaps we are 'reading in something that is not there' in Jn. 20:17, where the renderings of "hold on" or "cling", as in the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, AMP, ISV, WEY and NLV, to name a few, better express from the Greek 'haptomai' (the reflexive middle voice of 'haptO'), the force of the thought Jesus was imparting to Mary Magdalene, than does the KJV, ASV and DARBY rendering here as "touch". As my 'linked' post shows, I do not think that 'physical contact' was the issue.

The second possibility is that of the presentation, as the Great High Priest to the Father. Perhaps there is some Levitical prohibition of 'defilement' for the High Priest, in coming in how close contact he could make with someone else, before entering the Holy of Holies, and that is why Jesus spoke as He did to Mary. I do not know all the Biblical regulations about this, and am not going to take the time to search them out, today. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on this part.

Gotta run.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

[Sigh!!] (Bolded and enlarged to show that it is a heavy sigh)

Brother Bob, this was a humorous response.

Read the entire thread thru (assuming you don't get overtaken by nausea while reading what, IMO, Gerhard Ebersoehn has put together and 'written' for the purpose of getting in a 'free shot' at some Seventh Day Adventist teachings), then note the post #10 of billwald where he mentions "the transporter"; think about "Star-Trek" and Captain Kirk's famous supposed line of "Beam me up, Scotty!" (which line, incidentally, was never spoken in either the series or the movies), and you should then "get it".

Of course. I basically agree fully with this, and in fact, my original comments in this post in another thread were part of what was 'slashed and glued' together in the OP, here, of Gerhard Ebersoehn.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1205836&highlight=clinging#post1205836

The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ apparently ascended to the Father to make His presentation, as the His Great High Priest, (Heb. 4:1-10:25) between the time of the encounter with Mary early on that resurrection morning, (Jn. 20:11-17) and only shortly later that same morning, when the women did, in fact, 'touch Him', in that they actually "held Him by the feet". (Matt. 28:9) Read the passages to see that Mary Magdalene was one who then "held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him".

Did Jesus change His mind, about this?? Hardly! I just happen to think there are two possible answers here (which do not contradict each other, BTW), in that perhaps we are 'reading in something that is not there' in Jn. 20:17, where the renderings of "hold on" or "cling", as in the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, NKJV, HCSB, AMP, ISV, WEY and NLV, to name a few, better express from the Greek 'haptomai' (the reflexive middle voice of 'haptO'), the force of the thought Jesus was imparting to Mary Magdalene, than does the KJV, ASV and DARBY rendering here as "touch". As my 'linked' post shows, I do not think that 'physical contact' was the issue.

The second possibility is that of the presentation, as the Great High Priest to the Father. Perhaps there is some Levitical prohibition of 'defilement' for the High Priest, in coming in how close contact he could make with someone else, before entering the Holy of Holies, and that is why Jesus spoke as He did to Mary. I do not know all the Biblical regulations about this, and am not going to take the time to search them out, today. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on this part.

Gotta run.

Ed

Very Good Ed;...............

BBob,

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What have I, benefited from this dialectic?
That Christ cannot to his Church give of which He, not from His Father received— His Father— who now through Christ Jesus whom He resurrected from the dead— is become our Farther too; That's Jn20:17.
That Christ first had to have entered in into his own rest as God in his own— that He first had to have entered in into the presence and glory of the Father, and to have received from Him for Himself “the coronet of glory and the royal robe”;
That then Christ could give to his ‘Church’ as well, ‘gifts’ of which of all are supreme and comprehensive, the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life;
That Christ through the offering of his Life won and exhibited the redemption towards which the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in Oneness in the Temple of the Father’s Glory worked— the Holiest of God resurrected in the flesh of the body of Jesus Christ from the dead incorruptible and glorious. Here's the point of difference between you and me. 'Heaven', or where the Father was when He resurrected Christ from the dead, was THERE, at the Dead, Whom He resurrected! That was, IN the grave, ON earth, IN the body of Jesus Resurrected. This is what you people do not get: That Jesus was "raised in the Glory of the Father - in His Presence, in the grave, WHEN He resurrected Him. THIS, was NOT, Jesus' ascension! THIS, was NOT, Jesus' INTERCESSION! Get it?!


Where do I find that which I have so benefited, in the Scriptures?
Where John 20:17 is become the fulfilment of Jesus’ Prayer of Consecration to the Father, John 17, and the fulfilment of His prophetic Baptism, “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the Same, is He Who baptises with the Holy Spirit!” Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the faith in Whom through Jesus Christ, is what, from this conversation, I have benefited.

I thank you both, Ed Sutton, and Bob Ryan. The peace of God be with you, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

And I apologise, Ed Sutoon, that it made you nauseous. And those who loved your nauseousness, I'm sorry.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton:
"The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ apparently ascended to the Father to make His presentation, as the His Great High Priest, (Heb. 4:1-10:25) between the time of the encounter with Mary early on that resurrection morning, (Jn. 20:11-17) and only shortly later that same morning, when the women did, in fact, 'touch Him', in that they actually "held Him by the feet". (Matt. 28:9) Read the passages to see that Mary Magdalene was one who then "held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him"."

GE
You are wrong. The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ had made His presentation, as the Father raised Him from the dead. Eph1:19f et al! Your Scripture, Heb. 4:1-10:25, virtually the whole of Hebrews, proclaim Jesus' resurrection and His making atonement through sacrifice and resurrection - throughout. If you cannot find Jesus' resurrection in Hebrews, you must be spiritually blind, for just about every metaphor the writer uses, he means Jesus' resurrection with, e.g., He being 'perfected', 'appointed', anopinted' entering into His Rest. I say without fear of contradiction almost every metaphor he uses. And I have a host of Christianity's greatest saints to confirm. You may get nauseous of it, so many.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton:
"(Matt. 28:9) Read the passages to see that Mary Magdalene was one who then "held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him".""

GE
And you are going to get nauseous for your big loss, because I have in my bank a thousand dollars I send you this day, if you can quote me, where I can "read to see", 'Mary', in "Matt. 28:9".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton:
"(Matt. 28:9) Read the passages to see that Mary Magdalene was one who then "held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him".""

GE
Then help me in my stupidity, if you have feeling for your neighbour, and tell me how Jesus "Appeared to Mary first (of any and all) early on the First Day of the week", if in "Matt. 28:9" where no one knows HOW MANY women, ' literally', quote "THEY" Plural, "held Him by the feet"?
I beg you; I'm waiting???