Acts 1:11 (Please Read)

[TimGreeley]

Simply based on the fact that you are referencing Protestant translations - quoting Church Tradition may not convince you…but here goes…(and please note - I’m a convert, not a cradle Catholic, and I say this in all humility to try and help you - if my words come out in any other way, that is not my intent and I apologize)

“even unholy for a couple of Angels” - According to Thomas Aquinas - Angels are God’s greatest created creatures, they are closer to God than we are and it is only by God’s grace that we are elevated to Heaven. Furthermore, Angels are unable to disobey God - so if they are delivering a message to the Apostle’s, they are delivering God’s message. God does not contradict Himself, and if you are interpretatgin a scripture in such a way that it causes God (or his messengers) to contradict Himself, I’m afraid that is an error in your interpretation.

As a former Baptist, I completely understand that the next point I will make may fall on deaf ears, but I’m going to make it anyway…
The Church has set teachings and Traditions for a reason - that reason is because apart from the specific grace and revelation of God, we are not smart or wise enough to interpret scripture 100% correctly 100% of the time. Let’s face it - humans really aren’t that smart and we certainly cannot know the ways or thoughts of God. I know that it is a strongly held Protestant belief that each person may interpret scripture for himself, but perhaps that is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree and splinter off, and only “One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic” Church.

So - long point short - if you find the verses conflicting, or leading you to heretical interpretations - the error lies in your interpretation, not in the scriptures or the words of the Angels.

Excuse me, but I’m quoting the NASB. I’m a Catholic to the hilt from birth. I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone nor do I believe in Penal Substitution. I just like to read the Bible ; )

Let me ask you, how do you believe in Satan–the origin of the Fall of Man–if he disobeyed God? You are aware the he was an Angel, correct? Or is he an exception in your mind? There is no unambiguous interpretation of the verse from the chair of the Church historically that I’m aware of that is completely sacrosanct.

You’re reading my interpretation as a contradiction while it isn’t, although yours literally is. Unless you interpret the Angel’s message as having no specific significance apart from Jesus’ own last words to the Apostles and not having an erroneous semantical construction of sentences (***“Why do you look outside? He’ll be returning from outside…” ***), that interpretation has quite weaker legs than I’ve come to realize…

Remember, many Jews to this day don’t believe in Christ because they’re ensnared into a servile reading of the Old Testament! When Christ appeared he quoted the scriptures and the Pharisees didn’t want to read the scriptures differently as they were taught! They still don’t think the Messiah was God incarnate and was supposed to die!!

 

[JM3]

JM3, have you read the Gospels and Acts through recently? Do you really think it took those angels to ask that question to remind them of the import of their mission? Weren’t the 11 apostles being prepared for almost 3 years at this point–and already witness to countless miracles? Remember they stare intently at the sky "while he was going" (NASB)–not any second later. At that time the angels spoke to them. If the scene is depicted literally from the Bible, it doesn’t appear as they were tarrying–which that commentary interpretation implies. I recommend reading it in context again and you then may see my interpretation.

I find it insulting that you assume I haven’t read “the Gospels and Acts recently”. I accept what the Church teaches. You would do well to learn what the Church teaches instead of relying on your own reasoning and making up your own interpretation, which is protestantism

 

[TimGreeley]

Again, sorry Tim, but this makes no sense. If the angels are answering their own question a you suggest, then they are contradicting themselves.

Q. Jesus won’t return in like manner (i.e. from Heaven/the sky), don’t you know that?
A. Jesus will return in like manner (i.e. from Heaven/the sky).

If so, the angels need to take lessons in logic and aren’t very good messengers.

Regardless, let’s say your interpretation is correct, what’s the implication? That Jesus won’t be returning from the sky? Okay, and…?

"This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven" (NASB)

I’m sorry Jonathan, but I don’t think your interpretation that it means an Ascension reversed is unambiguous. He came and went into heaven as a Human being who was born to a Woman. From that statement alone, his rebirth is equal or more plausible in my opinion considering the syntax of the Angel’s words, let alone why they would act as a redundant reminder of what Jesus has been telling them every day for 3 years!

 

[TimGreeley]

I find it insulting that you assume I haven’t read “the Gospels and Acts recently”. I accept what the Church teaches. You would do well to learn what the Church teaches instead of relying on your own reasoning and making up your own interpretation, which is protestantism

I’m sorry JM3, I guess Jesus should have deferred his interpretation of scriptures to the Pharisees… A good Catholic is a studious Catholic. And your interpretation is not sacrosanct doctrine—as you should know as a Catholic.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

DEI VERBUM

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

 

[TimGreeley]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

DEI VERBUM

I’m sorry JM3, but there is nothing in that referring to the inviolable opinion of any Church father or member–let alone one concerning the passage in question. Don’t test my Catholicism. Jesus and God are inherently a mystery. We are always endeavoring to discover “their” ways in the World as Catholics—Tradition and Scripture being two main disciplines. The biggest example we have as Catholics to understand is Jesus himself. Do you challenge this? Or do you look at even the human Church as higher than Jesus? Jesus revealed to the priests of God’s original Church–the Judaic Temple–that the scriptures held meanings that they didn’t understand. They were staid and locked in their interpretation, which has remained to this today as Modern Judaism! Do you really believe God’s Church today is less inviolable than his Church of yesterday? If you do, you’re the one giving special holiness to his second Church–and disapproving of his first.

 

[jonathan_hili]

"This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven" (NASB)

I’m sorry Jonathan, but I don’t think your interpretation that it means an Ascension reversed is unambiguous. He came and went into heaven as a Human being who was born to a Woman. From that statement alone, his rebirth is equal or more plausible in my opinion considering the syntax of the Angel’s words, let alone why they would act as a redundant reminder of what Jesus has been telling them every day for 3 years!

Tim, I’m not saying it’s the ascension reversed. I think it is difficult to be definite on that point from the text alone. Rather, I’m asking what the alternative could be.

The alternative you propose (namely, that the angels are saying Jesus won’t and will come back in the same way) involves an incredible (in fact, I think unbelievable) contradiction that even a two-year-old wouldn’t make, let alone an angel of God or an intelligent man like Luke.

As for Jesus’ rebirth - good Lord! How on earth do you read that from the text? Yes, you might argue that the interpretation of the text of Jesus coming back from the sky/heavens might be problematic, but “rebirth” isn’t even mentioned at all! Furthermore, and this is a technical but important point, if Jesus were reborn then he wouldn’t be Jesus anymore. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical personage with a human nature and a divine nature. His human aspects are just as real as his divine ones. For him to be reborn would be to reject his already present humanity, and therefore lose his identity as Jesus.

My personal preference for interpreting this passage is that the angels are reinforcing the departure of Jesus and emphasising to the disciples that they should not cling to him (as with Mary in John’s Gospel). Rather, they have a mission to accomplish.

How, exactly, would you interpret this passage, as I’m still not clear on it?

 

[TimGreeley]

Tim, I’m not saying it’s the ascension reversed. I think it is difficult to be definite on that point from the text alone. Rather, I’m asking what the alternative could be.

The alternative you propose (namely, that the angels are saying Jesus won’t and will come back in the same way) involves an incredible (in fact, I think unbelievable) contradiction that even a two-year-old wouldn’t make, let alone an angel of God or an intelligent man like Luke.

As for Jesus’ rebirth - good Lord! How on earth do you read that from the text? Yes, you might argue that the interpretation of the text of Jesus coming back from the sky/heavens might be problematic, but “rebirth” isn’t even mentioned at all! Furthermore, and this is a technical but important point, if Jesus were reborn then he wouldn’t be Jesus anymore. Jesus of Nazareth was a historical personage with a human nature and a divine nature. His human aspects are just as real as his divine ones. For him to be reborn would be to reject his already present humanity, and therefore lose his identity as Jesus.

My personal preference for interpreting this passage is that the angels are reinforcing the departure of Jesus and emphasising to the disciples that they should not cling to him (as with Mary in John’s Gospel). Rather, they have a mission to accomplish.

How, exactly, would you interpret this passage, as I’m still not clear on it?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Huh?

I’ve gone blank on your blank reply!

 

[TimGreeley]

Huh?

I’ve gone blank on your blank reply!

Lol, I was editing that post after I submitted it without my reply–but the edit wouldn’t be allowed because of a time restriction. So here we go again:

I’m not sure you may be clear on what my alternative is… I’m not saying that the Angels are saying Jesus won’t return from the sky–and then in the statement–that he will. That’s what your characterizing my interpretation as. That next statement, “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven” (NASB), if read carefully on its terms, is not saying he’ll return from the sky in my interpretation.* At all*.

My conclusion that it could mean his rebirth is that I could only imagine Christ returning in either one of those two ways. Whether in dramatic descension and display–or as a humble, born-again human–which he’s more known for. ; )

It is in my opinion that scripture is not explicit on all future events, as it’s clear through the life of Jesus himself. Many aspects of his advent aren’t clear in the OT, and I do believe many things are left in mystery purposefully. That God humbled himself as a human being is nowhere to be found in the OT, nor are many other accepted elements of accepted tradition concerning Jesus.

I’m reminded specifically of the Road to Emmaus. To me, that’s how the Second Coming will be revealed to us. In dumbfounded epiphany–as we should have expected it. And what do we expect of the character of Jesus most principally? His Humility. His Love. His pure Selflessness. To me his entire truth goes against the idea that he’ll arrive while you’re snacking away at brunch in full glory in the sky. To me–at least–that is not the Jesus in Gospels.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’m not sure you may be clear on what my alternative is… I’m not saying that the Angels are saying Jesus won’t return from the sky–and then in the statement–that he will. That’s what your characterizing my interpretation as. That next statement, “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven” (NASB), if read carefully on its terms, is not saying he’ll return from the sky in my interpretation.* At all*.

My conclusion that it could mean his rebirth is that I could only imagine Christ returning in either one of those two ways. Whether in dramatic descension and display–or as a humble, born-again human–which he’s more known for. ; )

It is in my opinion that scripture is not explicit on all future events, as it’s clear through the life of Jesus himself. Many aspects of his advent aren’t clear in the OT, and I do believe many things are left in mystery purposefully. That God humbled himself as a human being is nowhere to be found in the OT, nor are many other accepted elements of accepted tradition concerning Jesus.

I’m reminded specifically of the Road to Emmaus. To me, that’s how the Second Coming will be revealed to us. In dumbfounded epiphany–as we should have expected it. And what do we expect of the character of Jesus most principally? His Humility. His Love. His pure Selflessness. To me his entire truth goes against the idea that he’ll arrive while you’re snacking away at brunch in full glory in the sky. To me–at least–that is not the Jesus in Gospels.

Thanks for making it clear, Tim.

Okay, if we grant - for the sake of argument - that the angels means Jesus won’t return from the sky or the heavens, that leaves the door open. So, I suppose, Jesus could return in any number of ways, provided these are not contradicted by what we already know in Scripture and Tradition.

My concern is that this couldn’t mean that Jesus would be reborn, for a number of reasons.

(i) The text reads: "“This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven”. Now, if he will come in just the same way as he was watched going into heaven, then that cannot mean as a baby, since it is evidently not the same way, and I want to put my emphasis here on his human personhood, not really his mode of transportation. Jesus was a fully grown adult human being when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, not a baby. Therefore, I think the text counts against that interpretation, which leads to my second point.

(ii) If Jesus was reborn, he would no longer be the person we know as Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was born, raised and died in a certain historical time and place. His mother was Mary. He had cousins, a foster-father, and certain disciples and enemies. If the Second Person of the Divine Trinity was reborn as a human being, he cannot be Jesus of Nazareth. But if that is the case, many things said about Jesus in the New Testament would be false, such as, he being the judge of mankind. Once the Son was reborn, he would cease to be Jesus, or else he would have to be two persons, which is impossible.

(iii) There are many scriptural passages (which, in all honestly, I can’t be bother listing right now) that count against rebirth and count for Jesus return as he is now.

 

[runningdude]

Why wouldn’t he be Jesus? You may as well say the same concerning the first Jesus, as that Jesus was also a “second nature” of Jesus the Word. The church doesn’t condemn the notion of the reincarnation of Jesus. They generally condemn the notion of reincarnation as a method or reality of the one, true God.

“Jesus” is the name the Archangel Gabriel told Mary to name her firstborn son. Previous to conception to the Blessed Virgin, the Son of God had no name separate from his Father, YWHW (“I AM…”). He was conceived in an event know as the Incarnation.

Church teaching is that we are conceived and born once, and possess an eternal soul united with a physical body. Though our physical body dies as a consequence of sin, it is raised from the dead at the end of time. For Jesus, he was executed for our sin, and raised on the third day (slightly earlier than the rest of humanity!).

The Ten Commandments reflect human nature. We are to honor our Mother and Father. The human nature of Jesus has only one Mother. To be “reborn” of another women directly contradicts the natural law, as established by Jesus’ (and our) divine Father.

For God the Son to enter the world through birth again, he would have to experience a second incarnation, not a reincarnation. Scripture tells us that this will not be the case; the Angels in First Acts explicitly state that Jesus shall return from heaven in the same manner that he entered it, that he shall descend in same manner as he ascended.

The Angels, by asking why the men stare into the sky, mean only to question their grief and confusion at the loss of their savior; they mean to reassure the Apostles of Jesus’ eventual return!

 

[TimGreeley]

Thanks for making it clear, Tim.

Okay, if we grant - for the sake of argument - that the angels means Jesus won’t return from the sky or the heavens, that leaves the door open. So, I suppose, Jesus could return in any number of ways, provided these are not contradicted by what we already know in Scripture and Tradition.

My concern is that this couldn’t mean that Jesus would be reborn, for a number of reasons.

(i) The text reads: "“This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you watched him go into heaven”. Now, if he will come in just the same way as he was watched going into heaven, then that cannot mean as a baby, since it is evidently not the same way, and I want to put my emphasis here on his human personhood, not really his mode of transportation. Jesus was a fully grown adult human being when he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, not a baby. Therefore, I think the text counts against that interpretation, which leads to my second point.

(ii) If Jesus was reborn, he would no longer be the person we know as Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was born, raised and died in a certain historical time and place. His mother was Mary. He had cousins, a foster-father, and certain disciples and enemies. If the Second Person of the Divine Trinity was reborn as a human being, he cannot be Jesus of Nazareth. But if that is the case, many things said about Jesus in the New Testament would be false, such as, he being the judge of mankind. Once the Son was reborn, he would cease to be Jesus, or else he would have to be two persons, which is impossible.

(iii) There are many scriptural passages (which, in all honestly, I can’t be bother listing right now) that count against rebirth and count for Jesus return as he is now.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But remember, how did Jesus go into Heaven as the Angels said? As an earthly, human body that was resurrected. And how did that earthly, human body come into being? It was born by a Woman.

Second, don’t you think your criticism of another incarnation rings of the theological criticism many Muslims have of the idea that God isn’t humble enough to become a human?

Thirdly, I sincerely hope you have enough of an open mind, and more importantly–an open heart–to not entirely preclude the possibility that he’ll be reborn. What if he’s alive today and waiting for his moment to reveal himself a la the Road to Emmaus? Would you dismiss him entirely on “scriptural” grounds just like the Pharisees and every Jew rejects Christ today?

 

[marymary1975]

But Mary, they were looking intently *** “as he was going” (NIV)***, not after! The angels appeared and spoke to them at this very moment! So this doesn’t imply any tarrying in my opinion… Why would they be terrified? Are you aware that most of the apostles had already been part of the supernatural ministry of Jesus, let alone already witness his resurrection body on many occasions before this one? I would imagine they would be in awe at his physical ascension as they were at every other miracle, but this doesn’t seem to sound like credible reasoning to me. If that was the case they would have left Jesus in terror before he was even crucified! Jesus left at the exact time after his last verbal statement of their mission to them. He had been preparing most of them at this time for more than 3 years!!! They were very ready to embark on their mission. This was not in any way like Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus–where Paul was terrified and even blinded to become incapacitated for three days.

Mary, isn’t it obvious in the text that the angels are answering their own question? And what is their question imply? That Jesus won’t be returning from the Sky. So the physical sky–or Heavens–isn’t a possibility if their statements are read in relation to each other. As they should be, considering there is nothing else said before or after them,

Time, the apostles right after that went to HIDE, they ran looking for the Virgin Mary to hide behind like her like chickens and you don’t think they were not afraid? If they were not terrified and what you say is true what in the world they were doing HIDiNG for so long? And why it took them so LONG to start their mission. The angels are not answering their own question. You are misreading the entire thing. The apostle DID left Jesus in terror before he was crucified, they all but one ran away. I don’t know where you are reading from but if you think that the apostles were all ready and set for their mission you are not reading a catholic bible.

 

[TimGreeley]

Time, the apostles right after that went to HIDE, they ran looking for the Virgin Mary to hide behind like her like chickens and you don’t think they were not afraid? If they were not terrified and what you say is true what in the world they were doing HIDiNG for so long? And why it took them so LONG to start their mission. The angels are not answering their own question. You are misreading the entire thing. The apostle DID left Jesus in terror before he was crucified, they all but one ran away. I don’t know where you are reading from but if you think that the apostles were all ready and set for their mission you are not reading a catholic bible.

Mary, have you read Acts 1 recently? I don’t know who told you that, but immediately after the Ascension they go to Jerusalem and Peter takes full command of the Apostles with full authority of his mission. Your interpretation is complete distorted hearsay. It’s not a Catholic interpretation either.

 

[TimGreeley]

.

(ii) If Jesus was reborn, he would no longer be the person we know as Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was born, raised and died in a certain historical time and place. His mother was Mary. He had cousins, a foster-father, and certain disciples and enemies. If the Second Person of the Divine Trinity was reborn as a human being, he cannot be Jesus of Nazareth. But if that is the case, many things said about Jesus in the New Testament would be false, such as, he being the judge of mankind. Once the Son was reborn, he would cease to be Jesus, or else he would have to be two persons, which is impossible.

Apart from my first general criticism of this explanation I have above, why wouldn’t he be Jesus? I really see no basis in your argument considering Jesus is the Word from time immemorial and having full power to do anything “he” likes–we theoretically should not rule out a rebirth as a possibility. That would be qualifying the power of God. Secondly, why wouldn’t this second, human Jesus not be able to be the *judge of mankind? *?

 

[Becky4906]

Excuse me, but I’m quoting the NASB. I’m a Catholic to the hilt from birth. I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone nor do I believe in Penal Substitution. I just like to read the Bible ; )

Let me ask you, how do you believe in Satan–the origin of the Fall of Man–if he disobeyed God? You are aware the he was an Angel, correct? Or is he an exception in your mind? There is no unambiguous interpretation of the verse from the chair of the Church historically that I’m aware of that is completely sacrosanct.

To your first paragraph - my apologies if I misread - I thought you were using NIV for some reason. my mistake.

To your second point - and I am relying on Aquinas and Pope John Paul II’s preaching on Angels from the 1980’s (he did a whole series of homilies re: Angels over a summer, I believe it was '86 or '87) - Angels have an irrevocable will - meaning that at the time of the fall they were given a choice to either obey God or to rebel against Him. Because of the nature of an Angel (again, according to Aquinas & PJP II) they made that choice with full knowledge of all its implications and consequences, and once that choice was made it was irrevocable. Therefore, an Angel of Heaven could not disobey God anymore than a Demon could repent of his rebellion.

With that - I am out. Clearly neither side of this discussion is gaining any ground, and I will be the first to admit that those already involved have a stronger theological background than I. So, God Bless.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But remember, how did Jesus go into Heaven as the Angels said? As an earthly, human body that was resurrected. And how did that earthly, human body come into being? It was born by a Woman.

Yes, but it’s quite a stretch to say that the angels meant by “in just the same way” to mean “as a human being”. What’s the point of making such an obvious metaphysical comment when the entire context of the passage has nothing to do with it?

Second, don’t you think your criticism of another incarnation rings of the theological criticism many Muslims have of the idea that God isn’t humble enough to become a human?

I’m not saying God isn’t humble enough. What I’m saying is that if Jesus were reincarnated he wouldn’t be Jesus anymore (which is the whole point of reincarnation). If so, to say things like “Jesus is our judge” or “Jesus will return” is nonsense.

Thirdly, I sincerely hope you have enough of an open mind, and more importantly–an open heart–to not entirely preclude the possibility that he’ll be reborn. What if he’s alive today and waiting for his moment to reveal himself a la the Road to Emmaus? Would you dismiss him entirely on “scriptural” grounds just like the Pharisees and every Jew rejects Christ today?

Firstly, I’m not sure what “an open heart” has to do with the idea of Jesus being reborn - it’s not an emotional issue. Secondly, if Jesus were reborn, quite simply, he wouldn’t be and couldn’t be Jesus, since Jesus would no longer exist. He might be the Second Person of the Trinity incarnating himself as a different person, but he would no longer be Jesus. It’s not possible to have two personhoods. That was a huge debate in the early Church, remember.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Apart from my first general criticism of this explanation I have above, why wouldn’t he be Jesus? I really see no basis in your argument considering Jesus is the Word from time immemorial and having full power to do anything “he” likes–we theoretically should not rule out a rebirth as a possibility. That would be qualifying the power of God. Secondly, why wouldn’t this second, human Jesus not be able to be the judge of mankind? ?

If Jesus were reborn, he couldn’t be possibly be Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who lived and died in a particular historical time and place. As I said above, he had a mother, cousins, adoptive father, etc. Jesus is not the Word from time immemorial: the Second Person of the Trinity is. Before 10 BC, there was no Jesus of Nazareth. When the Divine Second Person became incarnate, then he was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth and remains so today. If he reincarnated, then Jesus of Nazareth would cease. Why? You can’t have two personhoods. If the Second Person of the Trinity is the same as the personhood of Jesus of Nazareth, if he was reborn, he would have to adopt a new personhood, since the person of Jesus of Nazareth would no longer have essentially properties that match with this reincarnated person: Jesus’ mother was Mary; this new person’s mother is someone else; Jesus died on a cross in AD 30 or 33, this new person did not; and so on.

A personhood is one’s entire identity. That’s why we know that the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnated as Jesus and remained incarnated as Jesus because he is now Jesus. If he became reborn, he would have to be incarnated as someone else, and thus lose that essential identity of Jesus. I mean, how could you be entirely Jesus of Nazareth and James Smith of Croydon at the same time? It’s just not possible. It’s different from having two natures, since nature has to do with one’s substance and properties, not one’s identity.

God, specifically, the Second Person of the Trinity, cannot do what is logically or metaphysically impossible. Just as he can’t make either of us two persons, he can’t make himself two persons.

This second person could be the judge of mankind, but he wouldn’t be Jesus.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Acts 1:11 is a widely known and quoted verse, but I’ve never understood its popular and common interpretation. The interpretation explains that the angels inform the “Men of Galilee”, after they watch Jesus ascend to Heaven, that he’ll return the same way as they had just seen him leave. From Heaven–or the Sky. But in any of editions of the Bible that I read (ESV, NASB, NIV, DRA, etc.), that interpretation completely ignores the first and commencing line of the angels*** “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky” (NASB)***. The angels are clearly informing them while they’re ***“gazing intently into the sky” ***that Jesus will not return the way he had just left. The angels, in the next line, instead seem to be saying–even though obliquely–that Jesus will return just in the same way he came and left. That is, from my interpretation, be born once again.

Can anyone understand my confusion of this popular interpretation of the verse? Here it is in full from Acts 1:9-11 (NASB):

"9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

How did they watch Jesus go into heaven? That’s the way he will return. That is what the two men in white said–correct?

The two men in white did not tell the men of Galilee not to look into the sky–they asked a question as to why they were. You are drawing a conclusion from this that I am not sure the text indicates and really does not seem in keeping with other passages or tradition. We all know Jesus will return from the sky–should we all be standing around looking up at the sky watching for his return or should we be busy doing the work of Christ?

Peace of Christ,
Mark