Replies

Why are you tormenting people again with your nonsense?

If you are saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead in His incarnate body, which would include His blood, then you are preaching antiChrist statements.

Of course His blood was RESURRECTED with His body: "Life is in the blood"

And, of course His blood was shed, once and for all, on the Cross prior to His resurrection.

For you to deny that Christ was resurrected in the flesh (i.e. with blood running through His veins) is to take some weird Mormon antiChrist point of view that Jesus was a Spirit when He was Resurrected, and not flesh and bone

(and blood... for blood is created in our bones!)

Luke 24: 39

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Of course His blood was RESURRECTED with His body: "Life is in the blood"

I think the issue isn't whether he was resurrected - and that this was a *miracle, meaning no blood necessarily required* - He is now in His *glorified* body, having ascended to the Father.

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

No mention of blood...

.....

This seems to be a discussion of an issue that doesn't bring salvation - especially to people in denominations that have never heard the Gospel of Grace, but are trapped in rituals and a hamster wheel of guilt and false works.

>> If you are saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead^false in His incarnate body, which would include His blood^unprovable, then you are preaching antiChrist statements^{I am not}. <<

Wrong suppositions.

>> Of course His blood was RESURRECTED with His body: "Life is in the blood" <<

True only for the mortal body, not the immortal one.

>> And, of course His blood was shed, once and for all, on the Cross prior to His resurrection. <<

True, It was shed, gone, not stuffed back in the resurrected body, but presented in Heaven as the price for discharging the sin debt of mankind. Being incorruptible originally, now present and alive, uncoagulated on the Mercy Seat, before The Father.

>> For you to deny that Christ was resurrected in the flesh (i.e. with blood running through His veins)^unprovable is to take some weird Mormon antiChrist point of view that Jesus was a Spirit when He was Resurrected, and not flesh and bone <<

Wrong assumptions again, saying what I did not say, meaning what I did not mean, and twisting my doctrine. What Jesus was showing was that He was not an evanescent, immaterial, bodiless entity like a hologram or projector image, but a dimensional human body of flesh, bones, and motivating spirit, able to go through walls and take other human form (Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:16;, Rev. 3:13-16, 5:6, 19:12).

>> (and blood... for blood is created in our bones!) <<

Only in the mortal body; not in the immortal body, AFIK, where life is in the Spirit.

=====

All your theories here are unsupported imaginations and false.

For The Christ, The First-begotten from the dead ones, life is in the spirit, not in the blood.

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Lk. 24:39 AV).

Jesus has a body of flesh and bones, not flesh and blood.

He was raised from out of the dead ones, and as the first resurrected human, He was changed, as His servants will be:

1 Cor. 15:52,53 AV:
⁵² In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed. ⁵³For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"

It will be a changed flesh body, with all the normal appendages and healthy, but the flesh will be incorruptible, with no blood necessary. In it, the Spirit gives life, as it did of Jesus, both man and Deity. But the flesh and bones is a vehicle with humanoid operation, but without blood, for we shall be like Him:

1 John 3:2 AV:
² Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:
but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

We will also have flesh and bone like His, with life in the Spirit, not in blood any longer.

"It is the spirit that quickeneth^{gives life}; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn. 6:63 AV).

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.