Replies

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.

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.