Jesus rose back from the dead but when Mary went to hug him he told her not to because he’s not yet ascended to his father.
The Bible says that the dead will be resurrected and some will be resurrected to eternal life and some to destruction. So all end up having a resurrection.
So I’m tying that into could not the body that Jesus resurrected in not been the same as when he ascends? I believe he was resurrected in his same body he died in, and will still be changed after ascending.
Interesting question. Hardly a necessarily authoritative reference, but when I pasted the complete text of yours words just cited and searched, the first hit was surprisingly a Wikipedia page for the single verse:
It’s definitely something that I’ve always wondered about and just believe there is not solid info there at this time to understand it. I’ve read several about the don’t touching part but nothing particularly ever seemed focused on of his body would change or not.
Just with my belief I see from scriptures I believe it’s possible regardless of the reason why he did not want to be touched, it’s quite possible he’s still going to change once he’s ascended. Even Noses flowed from when he went close to God.
I believe that at the white throne all the dead will be resurrected to something similar to our bodies and then he names in the book of life gets called to enter so life and immortal bodies sustained by God and the damned remain in their regular bodies, not receiving the promise, and are cast into the eternal fire being destroyed.
Maybe similar to Moses body mentioned in Jude. Michael and Satan argued over his corpse for some reason. No real clue why. But then in the gospels he’s there shinning.
It’s a loose weak argument but it’s enough to make me not draw a solid answer either way.
The explanation I like the best came from Arther Custance. He suggested that Jesus hadn’t yet gone to heaven to effectively go into the holiest of holies–to the presence of God to present our redemption.That might be a bit extrabiblical but it kinda makes sense with the hebrew view of the Holy of Holies and the High Priest
Dear Klax, I used the term parenthetically, to broaden its normal range. The Roman Empire adopted (coopted) Christianity starting with Constantine. So I count all of massacres since that point including Justinian’s genocide of the Arians, the crusades, the inquisition and so forth.
Best wishes, Shawn
Not really a fan of the crusades. But it was a response to muslim opression down the middle east. Sure attrosities happened in the name of God and his name was missused. But hadnt the crusades happened the Christians in the middle east would have either been killed or false converted.
Dear Nick,
I understood that, but I still applaud your efforts. For me, the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son are the core of universalism. Jesus tells us that not one will be lost and even the worst sinner, who forsake the Father, will be welcomed home.
Best wishes, Shawn
I don’t agree that those parables teach universalism. Rather, they show us the depths of God’s love for us. The Parable of the Prodigal Son also has the part about the second son, which is a warning against religiosity or legalism, as addressed towards the Pharisees at the time
I think there’s a good reminder here that parables are probably not the blunt, general tools that flat readings tend to make of everything in the Bible. They are more like precision instruments delivering a very pointed, focused blow - probably custom made for the audience at hand. Treating them as all-purpose (blunt) instruments takes us in directions such as thinking that the parable of the talents can be used to teach investment strategy or the parable of the mustard seed is a lesson about relative seed sizes.
Jesus spoke in a picture language to His followers, and picture is worth thousands of words. Remember, Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12) There is deep spiritual meaning in all His words, not just a single pointed message.
Jesus also tells us to love our enemies (Matt 5:44) to show us how much God loves ALL, even the Adversary - the second son, who will not be lost. That is why these two parables are the strongest support for universalism, even if most modern Christians can’t see it. It was the emperor of Rome that declared the Adversary eternally damned, not Jesus.
The parable of the lost sheep might seem a better argument than from the prodigal son, going after the one lost sheep with such diligence. But the flaw in the argument is equating the sheep with everyone, for sheep were never used in the Bible that way. In fact we constantly see in the words of Jesus, as in Matthew 25, a division of mankind into sheep and goats
I dunno … I kinda like your original observation and agree that if one was to try to defend universalism with some given parable - the lost sheep might be a pretty good choice. Sure … there are others (or at least one anyway) where goats are involved too, but I think the point of that parable was to provoke sober self-reflection about what kind of life you’re living - and how that will identify which tribe you’re in on judgment day. Whereas the lost sheep does showcase God’s passion to reach to the furthest corners - to the very last one in the bottom of the barrel, so-to-speak. Sure; it isn’t any knock-down argument (what is?). There could be other sheep … or goats I guess if one wants to press that. But generally parables just aren’t made to be pressed and molded every which way.
Now that i think about i may struggle with that concept but our beliefs should be focused on what did the early christians believed. So the question is what did the early Christians opinion was on this topic?
That doesn’t seem quite right to me. I thought the purpose of looking at a verse as targeting that population was to take into account the limitations or at least differences of their world view in relation to our own.
First of all i speak generaly of the beliefs that we have not only tthe specific one. [quote=“MarkD, post:159, topic:42827”]
purpose of looking at a verse as targeting that population
[/quote]
That sentence seemed rude to me . So you are assuming the people here are targeting the universalists?
