prisonchaplain

Another teaching outline for your reading pleasure. :) SALVATION IS AS SURE AS THE ONE WHO GIVES IT! Introduction: Many religious people have no assurance that they are saved. 1. They rely on their good works–but did they do enough? 2. They rely on their staying away from sin–but are the bad deeds they have already done too great? 3. They believe they cannot truly know they are saved until they die. Scripture: 1 John 5:13: THESE THINGS HAVE I WRITTEN UNTO YOU THAT BELIEVE ON THE NAME OF THE SON OF GOD; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, AND THAT YE MAY BELIEVE ON THE NAME OF THE SON OF GOD. Proposition: We can know that we are saved–that we really are Christians. Interrogative: How can we know for sure that we are saved? Transition: The first way we can know we are saved is if we believe in Jesus. I. We must believe in the name of the Son of God. A. Jesus said he is the only way to God–the only way to salvation. John 14:6 JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME. B. Romans 3:23 Tells us that all have sinned, and Romans 6:23 says that the result of our sin is death, but that the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 3:23: FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD; 6:23: FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH; BUT THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. C. Perhaps the simplest verse concerning this matter is John 3:16. If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we are saved. 3:16: FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. D. Application: Sometimes the simple assurance of salvation is enough to confound the most devoted religionist, who knows not Jesus. A middle-aged woman attends a Christian church, and, at the invitation of the speaker, goes to the front and prays to receive Jesus as her Lord and Savior. She heads home knowing one Scripture verse–John 3:16. A couple of hours later, representatives from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society knock on her door, introduce themselves as Christian ministers, and tell her that they would like to talk to her about Jesus. She brings them in and sits with them. Mind you, she’s been a Christian for two-hours. Despite her age, she is a babe in Christ. Nevertheless, she begins to tell them about her life of troubles and sins. After about 20 minutes or so of explaining how miserable she had been, she tells them that this very day she was told that God loved the world so much, that He gave his one and only Son, that if she would believe in him, she would not perish, but have everlasting life. She prayed the prayer, God did forgive her, and now she feels so clean, so free, so in love with God and his ways. She looks at the two before her and says, “Is this the Jesus you came to tell me about?” One verse. One testimony. She says the two left, and the younger one turned to the older and said, “Maybe we’re on the wrong track.” Transition: It sounds good to say that all we must do to be saved is believe in Jesus, but didn’t James say that “Faith without works is dead?” II. We must obey God’s commands. The more we do the more we will have assurance about our salvation. James 2:14-19: 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons A. This does not mean we earn salvation by good works. B. Rather, it means that salvation–becoming right with God–will produce in us good works. If there are no good works coming from us, then we must question whether we truly have faith. C. The writer does not say that his good works earn him salvation, but rather that those good works are evidence that he does indeed have faith. D. The parable of the sower and the seeds. 1. Some hear the gospel and reject it. No faith and no good works. 2. Some hear the gospel, accept it quickly, but when trouble comes, they give up. Good works, but without true faith. 3. Some hear the gospel and accept it. Over time they concentrate more on their own needs, and they drift away from God. Few good works with the claim of faith. 4. Some hear the gospel, receive it, produce fruit in varying amounts. Faith + good works–some, a good amount, and a great amount. Transition: If faith produces good works, and I have done bad works, am I lost? III. We must respond to the guilt we feel when we do wrong. A. God stays with us even when we stray. Psalm 139:7-12 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. 1. God chases after us when we try to hide from him. 2. Even when we are in the midst of sin, the Holy Spirit is trying to direct us back to God. B. When we feel that guilt, we must sincerely repent and confess ours sins to God. 1 John 1:9 1:9: IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, HE IS FAITHFUL AND JUST TO FORGIVE US OUR SINS, AND TO CLEANSE US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. 1. God will forgive us. 2. God will erase every sin we repent of. C. If you suffer for your sins, that does not mean God has failed to forgive you. 1. David and Bathsheba a. David commits adultery with Bathsheba. b. When she becomes pregnant, he has her husband set up to die in battle. c. 2 Samuel 12:14: God forgave David’s sin, but the result was that his firstborn son would die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." 2. Zacheaus became a Christian, yet he paid those he had cheated before four times the amount he cheated them out of. Sometimes we must suffer for our past sins, even though God has forgiven us. CONCLUSIONS 1. We are saved in one way–by believing in Jesus Christ. 2. Obedience to God and good works are the normal outcomes of having faith in Jesus. 3. When we sin as Christians, we must repent, confess our sins, and we must endure the consequences of our sin. God forgives us, but he does not promise to spare us from the results of our wrong-doing. a. Sometimes God delivers us from our self-made problems. b. More often he suffers with us as he strengthens us in the midst of those problems.

Let me see if I'm understanding your argument. Are you suggesting that to be truly "pro-life," or consistently "anti-abortion," one would have to oppose all abortions in all circumstances? if so, is your reasoning that life begins at conception, and regardless of reason, ending the life is killing? Once I'm clear on your argument, we'll see if I'm dancing or simply walking a careful line.

You know, for a Deist, you sure have a fundamentalist streak to you.

First, thank you for your work on this. I'm responding to this post, because you express the essence here quite nicely. Your two points: 1. Jesus will come as a thief in the night. What this means for us is that we must be alert, be ready, for Christ could return at any time, without warning. Many will be caught unprepared. There will be at least some who name the name of Jesus, but who are not ready, and will not be taken up to be with Jesus. The key teaching here is the IMMINENCE or urgency and nearness of Christ's return. To suggest that many things must happen before Christ can return, or that things must get much worse, could cause some to let down their guard, and be unprepared. 2. Jesus did not say he would return in the twinkling of an eye. Well, you technically got me here. It was Paul, and he was referring not to Christ's return, but to the resurrection of our bodies at Christ's second coming. The resurrection of the body shall also come quite suddenly. Bottom-line: You might be right MrsS. Things might get worse, and there may be events to come before Christ returns. However, it would be foolish for anyone to count on having time. We have no guarantees. Best to grab ahold of salvation, righteousness, and obedience to the will of God today.

We are not the offspring of God--we are his creation. In a sense, we're more akin to the painting an artist produces. God creates us with the freedom to choose good vs. evil. Those who choose good, he redeems. Those who choose evil, he punishes. There's an almost Darwinian justice to it. I'm reading between the lines here, but my sense is that you were "testing the waters," and ultimately found nonbelief more rationale. So while you "did belief" for a season, unless you fully embraced it, I'm not sure you have a true comparison. Irregardless, my basic premise is that if you measure goodness by good deeds and practical kindness, then the irreligious actually have more time to be good. However, if goodness includes worshipping God and leading others to worship, then my argument that belief will make you better than you are, stands. "Everybody has a God-shaped emptiness in them," or something to that effect. There are many ways to numb such emptiness--especially if you are not sure what it is.

We don't have to support "cradle to grave socialism" to be considered pro-life. The former, more generous "Great Society" resulting in 5th-generation welfare families. What's so pro-life about that? Mark this well. The Prisonchaplain agrees. We are trained to preach what we believe, but to facilitate the religious practices of all. Something was not kosher there, and the standard government overreaction was to be expected. It'll even out over time. I agree, but the courts don't.

The John Birch Society is not strong, it's primary purpose is not Christian, to say it represents anything within the normal range of "right-wing" is to say Ronald Reagan is a leftist, and yes it was a fringe anti-communist group that probably had its hey day in the 1960s. Again, why here, and why now?

It's wrong when mother's life is in danger because she was here first, and the baby is dependent on her, while she is not dependent on the baby. Such cases represent far less than 1% of abortions, and in most of those, the baby will die if the mother does anyway. In cases of rape or incest, most Christian leaders would probably contend that carrying the baby to term, and then giving him/her up for adoption, would be the morally superior route. However, the sex was forced upon the woman, so the child is the product of a criminal act. Should the mother be forced against her will to bare the child of her assailant? Perhaps in a political vacuum, many would still say, "Yes. You don't kill the child for the crimes of the parent, or the revenge-motives of the victim." In a democratic republic such as ours, most pro-lifers realize that they will never see abortion criminalize if they are not willing to allow discretion in such heinous circumstances. Keep in mind too that rape/incest/threat to mother's life are reasons for less than 5% of all abortions, if I'm not mistaken. Since over 90% of Americans believe there is a God, there is an infuriating sense that a very small minority is tweeking the majority with this fight. Once again, this fight is more about the tail wagging the dog, and the dog finding it irritating. A pharmacist is not a soldier, nor is s/he involved in a war. They should not have to sell contraceptives, if doing so violates their religious practices. Likewise, Catholic hospitals should not be required to offer abortions, and doctors/medical students should not be required to learn/administer them. I would tend to agree, when the service is a non-sectarian public ceremony officiated by a government employee (most chaplains are). In such cases, there is a likelihood that there may be Jews in the audience, and religious Jews cannot participate or "Amen" any prayer that includes the name of Jesus. On the other hand, when government invites Christian clergy or representatives, or when a Christian chaplain is offering a Christian program, such a restriction is abhorrent. Faith group representatives who are invited to give invocations or benedictions ought to be expected to pray however it is they pray.

You mean like me/us? LOL Some posts need every point taken and addressed. I do both. LOL... but when in a hurry prefer the quickies. LOL Both approaches a valid, depending on how much time one has. I've found myself drifting towards selective responses. Every once in awhile though, a topic of great interest arises, and the back and forth sets in.

Unlike the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses keep a tight reign on their internet presence. The ONLY site where you can find official Watchtower views is: http://www.watchtower.org It should be easy to find their doctrinal distinctives at this site. By the way, they will eventually explain to you that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the "faithful and wise servant" in these last days, and the only source of truth. Furthermore, in this age, only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive the Battle of Armegeddon, and live forever on paradise Earth. So, yes, you are being called to debate. Change your selector switch from safe to "semi," and watch your aim!

Without questioning the merit of your former faith--and I do not know what tha was--I'm wondering where you were. We you the true believer, ready and willing to missionize and evangelize? Were you the cultural believer, who liked church and the people and the way of life? Were you one who hung around with other believers, and simply believed you fit in? Why I ask is that for religionists, part of being and doing good is worshipping God(s), and helping others to do so. If "doing good" is only measured in practical deeds, volunteerism etc., then, indeed, you probably have more time to do them now than you did when you belonged to a religious system. Okay, the "logic" of a loving God creating an eternal hell. And, of course, if logic is the standard, then it matters not whether we speak of the comparatively small Mormon hell, or the much larger evangelical hell. Here's my take on it: 1. Heaven (whether 1 or 3) is eternal. 2. If even a miniscule amount of sin/rebellion is allowed to fester in eternity it will eventually become a huge, divisive, destructive force. 3. So, sin cannot enter the Kingdom of God. 4. Rebellion against the Creator is even more heinous that rejection of the best human parents imaginable, because the eternal image of God is within us. We know he is true, and we despise and reject him--even though he made us. Romans 1 does suggest that we will be without excuse in our rebellion. 5. So, the only just punishment for scorning the eternal good is eternal bad. That's my take on the logic of a loving God creating an eternal hell. Does that mean I like hell, enjoy frothing about it, do not find it a difficult doctrine? Of course not. Most modern Christians struggle with the teaching of hell. Charles Taze Russell started the Jehovah's Witnesses, originally out of his rejection of the doctrine of hell. In my own case, I first became convinced of God's reality, goodness and power. Then I came to accept that the Bible is his holy Word. Then I came to it saying, "God what are you saying here." If I find something I do not understand or like, I do some checking. Sometimes I put it on the back burner. Finally, although I believe the evangelical teaching on hell is the most accurate, I've said for many years now that, "You do not have to believe in hell to go to heaven."

If the image of God is in all of us, then all of us have value. There are no "untouchables" in Christianity, no "Samaritans." As Brother Andrew pointed out, those Michael Savage calls Islamo-facists are, in fact, God seekers. So, rather than stamp out the ungodly, better to encourage them by example, by dialogue, and by the love of God in us. Unfortunately, you've obviously been the target of some brutish attempts at "sharing the love of God."

Those "with are thought or two" would be the ones that occasionally offer a single response to some aspect of a post, as opposed to those who exchange back and forth posts point by point.

That's a common surface-level question. However, the first question is: do you even want to know him/them? If you have already determined that any God(s) who exists is inherently unjust and cruel, then your search has already ended. Regardless of how powerful an unjust and cruel God may be, you would not want to worship or serve him/her/them. You're better off to ignore, or if necessary avoid, such (a) deities. On the other hand, if something does drive you to discover who the Creator is, then the 1000s of options could likely be quickly reduced to a handful. Some religious systems will prove illogical or immoral on the surface. Additionally, if as you seek, you become convinced that the Creator is singular, you're quickly left with very few choices. Those who seek will find is an Old and New Testament promise. I have heard you list your good qualities. I'm sure you have others you're too humble to enumerate. However, you're not perfect. You have faults. You have sin. Surprise, surprise...people of faith do too. True religion will not make you better than the unbeliever, it will make you better than you are. You might be a 'godless heathen' and do more public good than I do, though I be Christian. However, you will do much more good as a believer than you do now. Over time, you might even assess my accomplishments a little more generously. :-)

I know what you refer to. Republicans accuse Democrats of not supporting the troops, Democrats retort that Bush intentionally lied and misled the American people (and Congress) about Iraq's WMDs. Michael Savage calls liberals "red diaper doper babies" and "the enemy within." Ann Coulter calls them traitors. Liberals respond in kind, calling their ideological opponents "big fat idiots" and accuse them of: wishing to starve poor people, kill them by depriving them of healthcare, raping mother earth. Rev. Pat Robertson urges the assassination of a foreign leader, and a local school district superintendent says he doesn't know the difference between the Christian Coalition and Al Qaida. BUT, for all that, I still see that most Americans believe that most Americans, regardless of politics, do love this country, and have the welfare of its people in their hearts. So, for all the hype and nastiness, and cut-throat politics out there, hope still abounds. Perhaps, here too? It's one thing to question the judgment of a particular politician or administration, it's another not to be loyal to the country. Additionally, it's one thing to be disappointed, even broken-hearted over the moral depravity and slide of the nation, and another to abandon all hope, and call out for God's righteous judgment. My argument has always been that if we are called to pray for our leaders, then our prayers should be even stronger for leaders we don't fully or even mostly trust!

Correct. However, there's no doubting that good things come from sources that are not God-advocates. When the Israelites left Egypt their neighbors gave them many treasures. Some rather "ungodly" people run companies effectively, resulting in many jobs. Then, of course, sometimes there are good outcomes from wicked deeds. And, of course--and I suppose this is your key point--'godless heathens' often do wonderful things. My contention--and I think most Mormons are with me on this--is that the image of God is in us. So regardless of one's view of how much the Fall of Adam and Eve effected our "sin natures"--that image, however broken, is still in us.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Jesus offers to "sup" with those who will let him in. Prayer, of course--direct conversation with God. Studying Scripture to show ourselves approved, workmen who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God. Not tiring of doing good works. These are some broad gospel board answers. On the General Discussion side: Get enough sleep, exercise, think on good things (i.e. God things). BTW, even this string on a very straightfoward, seemingly noncontroversial topic, seems to have personalities trying to outdo each other. Is the Heavenly Father pleased?

The key to a fruitful discussion between folks of different persuasions, be they religious, political, or specific issues, is the concept of "loyal opposition." In politics, it can be summarized: Party members disagree, sometimes heatedly, with those on the other side of the aisle. However, they also assume their opponents are loyal Americans. Those LDS apologists (or even members with a thought or two) who engage me in dialogue here generally assume that I am at least reading their thoughts with interest and openness. Likewise, I presume that those who read my thoughts do so primarily to engage, not attack. I've had very little contention here. Heated back & forth on occasion. One or two misunderstandings. But none of the personal flaming that I've skimmed on several strings the last few days. So, I gotta ask... Where's the ?

It suddenly dawns on me that Christians "give testimony" that Jesus has saved us, has changed our lives, has given us peace, hope, and a greater capacity to love. How do we know? Most converts who are 14+ would say that they heard sermons, did some Bible reading, made an investigatory prayer (Lord, if you're there...), and at some point 'encountered the reality of God and Jesus in their hearts.' The testimony that God has spoken to our hearts always relates to God, Jesus, and perhaps that my sins are forgiven. It's interesting that the LDS 'testimony' is that the Book of Mormon is true, that the Church is true, and that the current living President is a prophet. The 'witness of the Spirit' relates to the holy books, to the insitution, and to the human leader. Of course, Unorthodox is right about FAIR and FARM being most useful when comparing/contrasting Mormon theology with mainstream Christian theology. That's what it does. It does not put many researchers to the tast of combating 'secular challenges,' because secularists generally don't challenge theological views. As to the Bible and its interpretation, no one can deny that there are numerous interpretations over many doctrinal matters. However, some interpretations have more merit than others. So, the "anything can be proven with the Bible" argument is a bit overstated. Furthermore, while there is certainly diverse views on many issues, the vast majority of Christianity agrees on an awful lot. There is enough agreement that we can usually cross denominational lines and call one another brother or sister. We want you to come over to our church, and bring your tithe with you ] B) That's so mellow, man. I want some of whatever it is you got. And Democrats who become Republicans (or vice versa), Rush Limbaugh dittoheads who convert to Air America, and that old-fashioned all time favorited, Brand-X uses who switch to Tide or Jiff or Crest, etc. Yes, conversion usually entails a renunciation of "the old life."

The problem with Mormons reading material criticial of their church is that it puts them into a no-win situation. 1. At some point the reading may prove persuasive. THEN WHAT? Leave the church? Leave the friends, the social network, rip assunder the family? 2. So, does one keep reading, hoping to find the weaknesses? Perhaps some who enjoy theological writings will choose this route. 3. Many choose to ignore the early feelings of uncomfortableness. Perhaps read an LDS-response piece (such as those criticizing the accreditation of Walter Martin's degree), and then to say, "Oh well...it must all be nonsense and deception!" Ultimately it comes back to a string I started months ago: why the intensity and abundance of anti-Mormon material? Either, the LDS Church is true, and the 'attackers' are unrepentent, or mainstream Christianity is true, and the writings are largely a response to the Apostasy claims of Smith against all other Christian churches, and a call for Mormons to return home to Orthodoxy. Jason's absolutely right here. I've heard testimonies from former Jehovah's Witnesses, former Satanists, former communists, former atheists, former Baptists (who came into Pentecost), and yes, former Mormons. Sometimes they are quite hard on their former beliefs, but those who come to embrace evangelical Christianity usually testify that what they now have is so much better and truer than what they had before. The whole notion of "convert" implies that this reaction would be the norm. We know that we know that we know that what we believe and practice, what we have sensed in our Spirits, what we have been taught, what we have been raised in, what others have died for, is true. I know I'm right, you know you're right--absolutely, 100%, no doubts. And yet, at least one of us is at least partially wrong. And, if Jason or Unorthodox are even partially right, we'd both be wrong. So, rather than telling anyone i know that I'm right, because God has witnessed the truth to my spirit, I simply tell them what I know, and how it has played out in my life. I'll have to let the Holy Ghost do that inward convincing work.

No religious leader likes to be criticized. It's especially difficult in the church setting, because leaders are too often put on a pedestal. Then, if they make a mistake, well "They weren't hearing from God. Maybe something's wrong with him spiritually. Could he be a false prophet?" When there is an important issue and differences of opinion, a religious organization can become a pressure-cooker environment. However, I would contend that such issues are even more difficult for Mormons. If the LDS is the only true church, the only holder of the restored gospel, and if the President and the leaders under him are modern-day prophets, well then to criticize the work might seem to criticize God. Rather than bringing up one's alternative view, best to pray that God reveal it directly to the leaders. The problem in such an environment is that people still have contrary views, but they cannot easily express them. Alternative views get burried, and the temptation to pretend can become pervasive.

Oh well...it sounded fundamentalist Baptist in tone to me. The most controversial point of the article, from a Protestant viewpoint is that the 1260 day period mentioned in Revelation should be interpreted as years, and then applied to an Age of Apostasy. I'm fairly certain that this reading is unique to Mormonism. It only makes sense if one presupposes the authenticity of Joseph Smith's revelations. 1. While Revelation 1-3 primarily refers to John's present time, and 4-5 are in the heavenly realm, for the most part, chapters 6 and on deal primarily with future events leading to the end times. Most of those descriptions seem to happen in relatively short periods of time. To wrest the 1260 period, and interpret it as years--and suggest that it ended in 1830--and that we are still here waiting some 176 years later, would be quite a stretch if one only relies on the Holy Bible.

I understand the LDS use of the KJV, and tend to use it here for that reason. On the other hand, the KJV is written in 400-year old English, and there are times when Greek and Hebrew scholars may enlighten us as to the meanings of certain phrases that read unclearly, at first glance. My use of the NIV, and of a scholar's commentary, was not to contradict the KJV, but to explain it. When Jesus said not to touch him, the Old English wording in today's English would be "stop clinging to me." And again, in the Matthew passage the other woman grabs hold of Jesus' feet to worship him, and he receives it. So clearly "do not touch" would not mean "don't lay a finger on me because my body is not yet prepared." It's true that they were traumatized. But again, in the minds of the disciples, Jesus had risen from the dead, not returned from heaven.

Jesus submitted to death on the cross as an atonement for our sins, not because he expected us to obey every government order, regardless of our how ungodly. If a government order is ungodly we are required to "obey God, not men." I agree that this should be a rare occurence, but one obvious case is when the 'authorities' order that the gospel not be preached. Paul and Silas were in prison for preaching the gospel. Authorities ordered them to cease and desist, and they said they could not. Likewise, during a Holocaust, I would argue that Christians were duty-bound to hide Jews. Martin Luther King's civil disobedience was a powerful Christian model for speaking the truth to power. And, as I've stated in previous topics, Old Testament prophets often got into trouble with kings specifically for calling them to look to God's laws rather than their own. Would Mormon missionaries [in that event] discontinue their efforts? 90% of the Christians in China belong to the unregistered churches, because in the government-approved ones preachers are censored, they are not permitted to preach the resurrection, the miracles, etc. Romans 13, of course, is more than welcome. I agree with the general principle of obeying authorities, but disagree that God intended that to be 100% carte blanche for evil governments. Believers have historically suffered martyrdom for disobeying governments by preaching the gospel. Additionally, the whole idea of "just war" is that a government can be so evil it must be conquered. What if local citizens agree and form a resistance? Are they disobeying Romans 13, even while their Christian bretheren in the "enemy nation" are fighting for the same cause?

Comments (mostly from Wycliff's Commentary--but he agrees with me): 1. The Greek rendoring of "touch me not" might better read "Stop clinging to me." Indeed, the New International Version reads, (John 20:17) Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (NIV) See also: John 20:17 in The Message translation: Jesus said, "Don't cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.' " 2. Wycliff notes that Jesus did not rebuke the other woman for holding his feet (Matthew 28:9). Conclusion: Jesus is gently informing Mary that the old relationship with him has changed. He is now glorified. She must not cling to the "man" Jesus, but now to King Jesus, the Messiah. I only explain this because I had never before heard such an interpretation of Jesus' statement to the women--reading into it the whole idea that he was not yet in a form to be touched, that he had to go to heaven and see his Dad first. Interest ideas. Thanks for sharing.