Need Scripture Help Regarding the Resurrection

[weird7]

I was asked a question last night at church that I had not ever thought of before. Reading John 20:17 (KJV), Jesus appears unto Mary after his resurrection and tells her to not touch him for he has not yet ascended unto his Father. Later (before the Bible tells of him ascending) he appears unto the disciples and asks them to touch him, feel his hands, feet, and pierced side.

The question was: After appearing to Mary, did He ascend and then return to appear unto the disciples or if He did not, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended and then allow the disciples to touch him?

I wanted to get my fellow Christian's thoughts on this.

[achilles12604]

There are multiple explanations depending on how inclined you are to gymnastics.

In my opinion, I have no trouble accepting the idea that John doesn't have all the facts written correctly. In fact I don't think that any of the Gospel stories have all the facts 100% correct. However, this really iisn'ta problem in my opinion. Can you imagine the chaos that was ensuing right then? Combine this with the basic troubles of an oral culture, different styles of writings, different intentions for their works, etc and you can easily see how a good solid base of fact can iincursmall errors and problems with chronology.

In general I don't try and explain these things away with theological gymnastics. It is much easier to simply acknowledge the chaos that was occurring (which incidentally also lends itself to the plausibility of the overall event.)

Hope I helped.

[weird7]

achilles12604, I always love reading your posts.

There are multiple explanations depending on how inclined you are to gymnastics.

In my opinion, I have no trouble accepting the idea that John doesn't have all the facts written correctly. In fact I don't think that any of the Gospel stories have all the facts 100% correct.

Are you claiming that the Bible is not inerrant? I have not heard many Christians take this position.

However, this really iisn'ta problem in my opinion. Can you imagine the chaos that was ensuing right then? Combine this with the basic troubles of an oral culture, different styles of writings, different intentions for their works, etc and you can easily see how a good solid base of fact can iincursmall errors and problems with chronology.

In general I don't try and explain these things away with theological gymnastics. It is much easier to simply acknowledge the chaos that was occurring (which incidentally also lends itself to the plausibility of the overall event.)

Hope I helped.

I agree that if you take the position that the Bible does contain errors, there is no reason to explain away anything. Just chalk it up as another error. Most non-believers on this site would claim that there is no reason to believe the Bible as the word of God because of the many apparent errors and contradictions. But this is another subject.

achilles12604 suggests that there are "multiple explanations" to my questions above. I am interested in hearing some of them, just out of curiosity. I realize that it may just be conjecture but will anyone be so kind as to list some?

[otseng]

When he ascended into heaven in Luke 24:51, it was not the first time he ascended into heaven, but the second time.

So, the chronology is:

1. Appeared to Mary (could not touch Jesus)

Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

2. Ascended into heaven to sprinkle his own blood for the once for all atonement

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

3. Appeared to the disciples (could touch Jesus)

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

4. Ascended into heaven

Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

At least that's how I interpret it.

[weird7]

Thanks Osteng, I feel honored to have you reply to one of my posts. There is one problem with your interpretation that some people in my church did not feel comfortable with.

Most Christians are waiting for the "Second Coming" of Christ (the rapture). If your interpretation is correct, wouldn't we be waiting for the "Third Coming" of Christ?

[otseng]

Most Christians are waiting for the "Second Coming" of Christ (the rapture). If your interpretation is correct, wouldn't we be waiting for the "Third Coming" of Christ?

I don't really have much of a position on eschatology. Fortunately for me, the statement of faith for my church requires no position on end times. And surprisingly, it's a Baptist church!

Anyways, I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible with the exact words "second coming" used to describe the rapture. So, if it's not in the Bible, then there's no Biblical support for it.

[weird7]

Most Christians are waiting for the "Second Coming" of Christ (the rapture). If your interpretation is correct, wouldn't we be waiting for the "Third Coming" of Christ?

I don't really have much of a position on eschatology. Fortunately for me, the statement of faith for my church requires no position on end times. And surprisingly, it's a Baptist church!

That is surprising. I also go to a Baptist Church not far from your own (Dahlonega, GA) by the way.

Anyways, I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible with the exact words "second coming" used to describe the rapture. So, if it's not in the Bible, then there's no Biblical support for it.

I will have to agree. I cannot find any Biblical support for the rapture being the "second coming". Interesting.

Does anyone else have a different interpretation/theory regarding the above scriptures?

[otseng]

That is surprising. I also go to a Baptist Church not far from your own (Dahlonega, GA) by the way.

Well, let me clarify this. It's not necessary to believe in the "pre-millennial, pre-tribulational return of Christ" to be a member. As long as one believes in the "literal, visible and personal return of Christ" (which I do believe), then that is all that is required. So, I can be amillennial, post-millennial, preterist, or whatever and still fully conform to the statement of faith.

[weird7]

Well, let me clarify this. It's not necessary to believe in the "pre-millennial, pre-tribulational return of Christ" to be a member. As long as one believes in the "literal, visible and personal return of Christ" (which I do believe), then that is all that is required. So, I can be amillennial, post-millennial, preterist, or whatever and still fully conform to the statement of faith.

I was not aware of the terms you state above, as many others that I did not know before coming to this site. But while looking them up on an online encyclopedia, I found it interesting to note that while defining these terms, they used "second coming" to describe the return of Christ.

[john_anthony_gonzalez]

I was asked a question last night at church that I had not ever thought of before. Reading John 20:17 (KJV), Jesus appears unto Mary after his resurrection and tells her to not touch him for he has not yet ascended unto his Father. Later (before the Bible tells of him ascending) he appears unto the disciples and asks them to touch him, feel his hands, feet, and pierced side.

The question was: After appearing to Mary, did He ascend and then return to appear unto the disciples or if He did not, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended and then allow the disciples to touch him?

I wanted to get my fellow Christian's thoughts on this.

When i studied this verse i concluded that Mary had grabbed Christ and was holding on to Him as if she would never turn Him loose. Christ explained to her that He could not stay because He had to ascend to His Father. So the reason he told her off was because she was clinging on him and wanted him to stay..

The reason he let the disciples touch him in my opinion is to strengthen their faith.