Touch Me Not

[Calm]

But it is interesting that he confirms that we have the same "Father"- ie people and himself as the Christ.

Yep.

Of course, that is often answered by pointing to adoption or making it simply symbolic for men while it is literal for Christ (not suggesting here they mean he is the 'biological' son of the Father), but I would think that if Christ is using the term Father twice in the same sentence, he is likely intending it to mean the same thing.

[Calm]

So I wonder what Mary was thinking - if He was back for good and He had to let her know quickly that He was there for a purpose and then had to go. It made me feel sad for her.

Especially if one considers that she had thought she had lost him (assuming here she didn't really understand what the resurrection would be based on the scriptures to people being relatively clueless until after it happened) and then suddenly he is there and perhaps she is thinking it can be just as it was, only better.

[mfbukowski]

I always read it as 'no one can touch my new resurrected body until i present myself to the Father'. I then always read the verse following it as his declaration that He was on His way to go do that and for Mary to let His apostles know where He went.

I just assumed that after Christ visited the Father in His resurrected body that first time, it was fine for people to touch Him, which is why the apostes and the people in the book of mormon were able to do so.

It's interesting to look at it from a different angle though.

But what made him suddenly "touchable" where before he was not? THAT is what puzzled me- and this explains it in a different way.

[Calm]

But what made him suddenly "touchable" where before he was not? THAT is what puzzled me- and this explains it in a different way.

Which is why I favour it unless someone can demonstrate there is something that a preascended, but resurrected body can't do what an ascended one can. Some people imply that he would have been contaminated somehow by her touch in a way that he wouldn't be later after ascending, I've even heard one claim that it was because it was a woman and it was a purity issue where men touching him wouldn't have somehow 'defiled' him (suggestion by a nonLDS). It never really made sense to me. She could either touch him or not due to his physical state, if she couldn't there was no need to 'rebuke' her not to as she would have discovered it for herself. OTOH, the Greek translation suggesting the idea he is telling her that he needs to be about his father's business seems consistent to me with the way he talked about his mission at other times.

[bluebell]

But what made him suddenly "touchable" where before he was not? THAT is what puzzled me- and this explains it in a different way.

I never understood Him to be saying that He wasn't touchable, but rather that it was not appropriate for her to touch Him at that time.

I don't have any issues with a translation that says He told mary not to cling to Him per se, i just don't think it meshes well with the rest of the verse.

The rest of the verse kind of seems like it is explaining why He wants her to touch Him not (because He has not yet ascended and not because she's being clingy) and it also seems like it is telling her where He is immediately headed (ascending to God).

[bluebell]

oops-double post.

[Calm]

I don't have any issues with a translation that says He told mary not to cling to Him per se, i just don't think it meshes well with the rest of the verse.

If he's telling her he's got to go now, it seems to me the addition is so that she won't wonder where he has to go to.

[mfbukowski]

Which is why I favour it unless someone can demonstrate there is something that a preascended, but resurrected body can't do what an ascended one can. Some people imply that he would have been contaminated somehow by her touch in a way that he wouldn't be later after ascending, I've even heard one claim that it was because it was a woman and it was a purity issue where men touching him wouldn't have somehow 'defiled' him (suggestion by a nonLDS). It never really made sense to me. She could either touch him or not due to his physical state, if she couldn't there was no need to 'rebuke' her not to as she would have discovered it for herself. OTOH, the Greek translation suggesting the idea he is telling her that he needs to be about his father's business seems consistent to me with the way he talked about his mission at other times.

I agree.

It's just a better explanation- basically a mistranslation distorting the whole meaning.

I like it.

[mfbukowski]

I never understood Him to be saying that He wasn't touchable, but rather that it was not appropriate for her to touch Him at that time.

I don't have any issues with a translation that says He told mary not to cling to Him per se, i just don't think it meshes well with the rest of the verse.

The rest of the verse kind of seems like it is explaining why He wants her to touch Him not (because He has not yet ascended and not because she's being clingy) and it also seems like it is telling her where He is immediately headed (ascending to God).

Yes but:

why wasn't it appropriate?

The other issue here, is remember we are talking about the Bible- think about how we got it and the reality of what it is. Would it actually contain the correct account of such an intimate moment which no one can understand doctrinally, or is it more likely that it is a mistranslation?

I vote for door number 2!

[bluebell]

Yes but:

why wasn't it appropriate?

From the remainder of the verse, the only answer i can find to that is because He had not yet ascended to His Father.

The other issue here, is remember we are talking about the Bible- think about how we got it and the reality of what it is. Would it actually contain the correct account of such an intimate moment which no one can understand doctrinally, or is it more likely that it is a mistranslation?

I vote for door number 2!

True, but i'm not sure much is to be gained by doubting what we are given. If we want to go this route, then we have to acknowledge that there could be doubt that mary was even present or that Jesus said anything similar to what we are given. Obviously, the records were probably recorded years if not decades later and since we don't have the 'book of mary', and no apostle was present during this exchange, it's probable that whatever Jesus specifically said, we don't have the direct quote but something closer to hearsay.

Lots of variables to consider if one wants to go that route.