[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. 😊

[Sontagged]

My main concern is that if one does not believe the fleshly body of Jesus that was raised from the dead is the same body of flesh He had on the Cross... then you do not believe in the bodily Resurrection.

You believe some sort of spiritual resurrection, which is Gnosticism.

As the article states... was the fleshly body of Christ revivified; brought back to life in its exact same physical, fleshly form or not?

You state that it is NOT in its same physical form.

[Mark17]

. 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. 😊

AMPU, you’re going fishing? Did you change your name to Peter? He went fishing too. What a worldly thing to do. 😁 Relax bro. I am JOKING. 😆😊👍 Living only 3 blocks from the Pacific Ocean, we have done a little of that too. 😀 I agree with you, in that, I don’t think it matters a hill of beans, about blood or no blood. It will have no affect whatsoever, on salvation at all. NONE. This discussion is pure speculation.
I hate to use an old worn out cliche, but God could do it any way He chose, and no, I am not into gnosticism, or G-12. It’s not worth wasting time on at all, and if it continues, Elsie and I may resort to a Limerick war. 😁