[Sontagged]

As a charismatic Pentecostal, I am a little surprised that I agree almost totally with this article; posted because many of my dear FRiends here are of the belief Jesus had no blood in His body when He was resurrected, but "only" flesh and bones without blood. I'm thinking this flies in the face of Christ's common sense appeal to His Disciples:

See, it's me, myself... touch me, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have... and then He ate some meat and honey.

(Etc.)

[Getready]

Not commenting on this dispute....but the fact that the resurrection occured( i.e.....
Life from death)...is what is germane...... I dont remember the apostles having this discussion.

[elcid1970]

Only living bodies can take in food and drink. The risen Lord did partake in their sight.

Earlier two of the disciples who had fled came upon a Stranger cooking flatbread & some of the fish they had caught at His command. From the campfire the risen Lord bid them, “Come and have breakfast!”

Food is a Biblical metaphor for life and the Eucharist is food for eternal life.

[MHGinTN]

The following assertion is not supported by the words of Jesus, for HE said flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. Such gross assumptions as Horton promotes tend to devalue the Resurrection into something even science can accomplish.

Horton asserts the assumption that, "Now a flesh and bone body must necessarily still have quite a bit of blood in it."

Jesus said flesh and bone. The Power of the Creator is such that HE can make any type of body for resurrection that HE chooses to make. What will be the next bold assertion, that the resurrected Christ MUST have Oxygen? Must have food? The root of heresy in Preterism is assumptions, and this assumption of necessary blood is in the same vein of arrogant assumption over what God can do.

[dartuser]

The only thing that goes beyond the text is the comments about digestion in the glorified body.

That is pure speculation ... and it seems more reasonable that the glorified body will consume 100% of what it takes in without any waste.

I have no biblical data to support that speculation ... but having an immortal body seems inconsistent with waste products. If there are no reproductive capabilities ... "they are like the angels ..." then it is reasonable that some other functions of our current unglorified bodies would be changed or discarded.

Just my unglorified opinion ...

[metmom]

I see no point in engaging in this thread.

After being accused of “negating and discrediting Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross”, “Jesus was resurrected in His Divine nature, not His Human nature”, and “making things up”, I don’t see the point.

I tried on the other thread to clarify what I said but I just kept getting accused of not believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Scripture does not tell us either way if Jesus resurrected body had blood, and to be dogmatic that it did is as much without support as to be dogmatic about Him not having blood.

And claiming that *flesh and bones* by necessity means blood, and to argue that Jesus’ body changed on the way up sounds too much like rationalization, trying to convince me with reason instead of trying to convince me with Scripture.

Flesh and BLOOD cannot inherit the kingdom of God and yet we WILL eat and drink in that kingdom.

This is all I am posting on this thread.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

With respect, some of those quoted were my teachers, but this is not worth participating in a discussion. Believing or not believing in “blood” between the resurrection and glorification will not get eternal life nor prevent eternal life. Nor is He in that state today. If it were clear, you could point to one or two verses that state it, or one cogent argument that is not refutable. I see neither. I leave you to this discussion. I am going fishing. 😊

[Elsie]

I see the angels have moved to a bigger dance floor!