At least, the well known pictures painted long ago show none:
Posted on 06/23/2018 7:48:28 AM PDT by Salvation
Bowing at the mention of Jesus’ name is an old practice that has since fallen into wide disuse
Msgr. Charles Pope June 10, 2018
Question: I was taught to nod my head when the name of Jesus was spoken. I see some priests and congregants do it, but not most. What is the current practice? — Diane Garrett, via email
Answer: Liturgically it is not required. This is a pious custom that, while less common today, is still observed by many. This is not only in the liturgy, but at any time the name of Jesus is uttered, and also, quite commonly, the name of Mary. In the traditional Latin Mass, where clergy wear birettas (a kind of square hat with a pom), there is the additional tipping (lifting off) of the biretta at the names of Jesus, Mary and the saint of the day. This external and very visible action also helped the faithful remember to bow their heads.
This laudable custom has sadly declined. Some clergy and others still observe it, and, while it is not required, it is worthy of being encouraged. Other customs too should not be forgotten, such as making the Sign of the Cross when passing a Catholic Church, praying the Angelus at noon and 6 p.m., and so forth. The generations raised in the 1960s and ’70s largely abandoned such practices. However, many of their children have rediscovered some of these lost customs like a precious heirloom brought down from the attic. Thus, while being careful not to harshly judge those who do not follow this non-required custom, many can joyfully take it up again and encourage others to do so.
What are you talking about now?
You lost the argument. You believe Jesus was resurrected into a glorified, immortal body of indeterminate substance of a different, alien type of flesh (different than human flesh) that has NO BLOOD? (LOL)
And now you want to waste more of my time on vain imaginings about what our glorified bodies will look like?
The important issue is that you do not believe in the Word of God, that Jesus was resurrected into a body of flesh (and blood and bone) that did not suffer corruption, and all the disciples were witnesses to this?
Don’t you think Paul or John or Peter would take the time to discuss your (idiotic) argument that Jesus’s body of flesh and bone really had no blood in it, because He was really in his GLORIFIED BODY at the Resurrection?
Don’t you think your idiotic and antiChrist theory that Jesus was Resurrected in the Flesh but just without any blood in His Body (which would certainly make breathing eating, drinking and talking impossible) would in some way be addressed in both the Old and the New Testaments?
You are nuts and thinking about arcane issue (terminator bodies?) like Mormons. And Muslims. Do you also believe there is marriage in heaven?
Get thee behind me Satan, for the way you think is man’s way, NOT GOD’s.
“... His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.”
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
FLESH: Strong’s G4561 —
Flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
The whole discussion about whether Jesus’ resurrected body came about some time ago when discussing transubstantiation.
The Catholics stated that one has to literally eat the literal body and blood of Jesus to have His life in them. The question arose then if it was the blood from His body before He was crucified or if it was from His body after He was resurrected.
Now, that there was blood in His body before He was crucified is beyond doubt or debate. Scripture is very clear that He did have blood in His body while He walked the earth. That blood was shed for the sins of the world. And while Scripture doesn’t explicitly say, it’s not hard to conclude that it was all of it that was possible.
Then the question arose about whether Jesus’ resurrected body has blood in it.
Again, Scripture doesn’t explicitly say. HOWEVER, when talking about the resurrected body, it uses the terms ‘flesh and bones’. It does not say ‘flesh and blood’.
The earthly body that Jesus walked around in here on earth was one such as ours, made from the dust of the earth, and must have had blood circulating in it to survive, and for Him to be fully human and fully share in our humanity.
However, our resurrected bodies are going to be different. Yes, they have flesh and bone. Yes, they can eat. But there is no mention of blood in those bodies and they will be able to survive conditions that our earthly bodies cannot.
Blood requires oxygen to be effective.
If the resurrected Jesus had a body that depended on blood, then He never would have survived the ascenion. That body would also have perished.
And there is the Scripture from 1 Corinthians 15 that speaks into the topic.
But whether or not His resurrected body had blood in it is something we simply are not told.
And whether or not it does, does not change any of the facts about the life and death of Jesus and the efficacy of the blood He shed for our sins on the cross.
I lean towards His resurrected body to not having it because there is no mention of it ever in any mention of resurrected bodies. Because of those body’s ability to pass theough walls, appear and disappear at will, and to ascend, it absolutely lends itself to not being an earthly body of the same kind of substance as our current ones, which would not survive some of the events.
So nobody is saying that Jesus’s resurrected body did not have flesh and bones and no one is advocating the spirit only kind of resurrection such as cults teach. The only question is whether that body had blood in it and while you raise a good point about the function of bones, I don’t see that it proves the existance of blood in the body beyond doubt.
But long and short is that we don’t know and IMO, since it’s not a salvific issue, it’s not a mountain to die on. I refuse to get dogmatic about things that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture.
Jesus' flesh, drained of circulating blood, went to the grave, Sort of like the hamburg in my refrig. That hasn't seen corruption yet, either. You know that Christians are not to ingest blood, right?
Stop flailing about verbally with no logic involved.
Well...
1 Corinthians 15:50 KJV
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
At least, the well known pictures painted long ago show none:
...of the effects of the beatings and lashing Jesus received; either.
Which must have been revealed to John, as he exclaimed early in Jesus' ministry:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29
Oh?
Others have claimed, "You don't know nuthin!'
P.S. Jesus’ blood was shed on the Cross, but to deny that He again had blood running through His veins after the Resurrection is an anti-Christ position.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I think we are; once again; arguing the unknowable.
An interesting point. Someday . . .
And THAT is why we spend seemingly ENDLESS hours 'debating' things that the Holy Spirit evidently chose NOT to include in Scripture!
Like Nature; the human mind abhors a vacuum.
I almost corrupted some on my grill last night...
Well; either that or a burnt offering.
I think I'll remain silent and just sit on this log.
"The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly" (Prov. 20:30 AV).
(I think "blueness" means not leaking red blood, no arterial pressure.)
I simply do not know how you got suckered into this, MetMom.
Jesus had the same flesh and blood and bone body when He “disappeared” into the crowd when they wanted to stone Him, so the walking through walls thing was happening BEFORE the Resurrection.
Jesus had the same flesh and blood and bone body when He walked on water, so the walking through walls type of miracle was happening before the Resurrection.
(What’s more difficult, to walk through a wall or to walk on water?)
This is ridiculous.
The real problem is that you are negating and discrediting Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.
He was resurrected in His human nature, in His same FLESH which suffered no corruption.
But you are saying that Jesus was resurrected in His Divine nature, not His Human nature.
This is no where indicated in the Word, and it is heresy.
You are just making things up because it’s not fancy enough or super spiritual enough that Jesus was raised up in the same body in which He was crucified?
This is heresy and it negates the ABSOLUTE SACRIFICE of God sending His only Begotten Son to die in our place on the cross.
It was a sacrifice. It cost something. It was stressful to the point of bleeding through His sweat glands in the Garden. It was humiliating, and shameful to be stripped naked before the entire world and crucified like a dog on a stick. To be mocked and spit on and whipped within an inch of your life, with a fake crown pressed into your brain. And then, to check if you were dead, a spear is shivved into your ribs.
You are saying that none of that really mattered because God just snapped His fingers and put you into Spirit body, your glorified body. Which He could have really done at any moment in time, not just after three days.
But the reason God set out three days was so that the miracle of the resurrection of the fleshly body of Christ would be understood!!!!
And Jesus CLEARLY explains it was not a spirit body or glorified body or immortal body that He had, but His old body that was crucified on the cross and yet, somehow this body of flesh did not suffer corruption.
I don’t know how to explain your error any better than I have, but it is serious and it is heresy and you have much more explaining to do than I do to justify your position of believing in a bloodless alien-flesh immortal body at the resurrection.
It’s complete heresy, and antiChrist and it smacks of the Manifest Sons Of God type of NAR heresies.
So, how do lambs take away (=utterly remove) the abstract “sin” and its effects? I remember reading where lambs were roasted and eaten, right down to the bones.
“I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist”
Mormons do not believe Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, but in the Spirit only and that is why they are anti Christ.
To say that Jesus was resurrected in a bloodless, alien fleshed, immortal body, is to deny the Word that says He was resurrected in the same body He was crucified in, a body that suffered no corruption.
If this bloodless-immortal-glorified-resurrected body idiocy wasn’t so similar to Mormonism, I’d let it go. Of all people, you should know better, Elsie, and you have a duty to correct on such an important topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.