- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I think i did not adequately address your question, David. Give me a moment.
C
clmowry
Guest
Only to the extent that His “DNA” is His Essence or Substance.
What actual DNA does Christ have?
Did He have any before the incarnation?
He certainy had Human DNA after the incarnation and before the ressurection.
Does He current have any DNA?
I doubt it.
I suspect that Christ’s glorified Body was of different matter at different times before His ascension, but He was not defined by the mater He manipulates.
While in Heaven, I doubt that His Body consists of any Physical mater at all.
Chuck
What actual DNA does Christ have?
Did He have any before the incarnation?
He certainy had Human DNA after the incarnation and before the ressurection.
Does He current have any DNA?
I doubt it.
I suspect that Christ’s glorified Body was of different matter at different times before His ascension, but He was not defined by the mater He manipulates.
While in Heaven, I doubt that His Body consists of any Physical mater at all.
Chuck
Are you saying Christ’s DNA is actually present in the bread, Chuck?
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
*Well, I have often thought about whether their is a kind of ‘spiritual DNA’ in terms of the mystical body since we are all meant to be members of Christ’s .Body. in the church. Now how does that relate to the Eucharist? Well, if someone is very worldly and has false gods in their lives or has corrupted their conscience and fallen away, have they marked themselves with a false spiritual DNA which makes it impossible for them to be in union with Christ? I throw that out as a question.
So Jesus, in His Sacred Presence comes in the fullness of this spirittual DNA which includes His Glorified Body which served Him
so perfectly as a vehicle on earth to express the nature of the Father, the nature of the Son as Suffering Servant and Lamb of God, the perfection of the Beatitudes, and now as a Glorified Body shows forth the power of the Holy Spirit in its fullness.
We are promised that if we walk in Christ’s footsteps which means being servants, suffering and the cross, witnessing, faithfulness to the Beatitudes, spiritual and physical works of mercy, then we are in union with Christ and become other Christs in the world. That is when we can say we have His spiritual DNA.
The Eucharist when it is received by such a person is fruitful in their lives because it comes into a true member of the mystical Body. But if the Eucharist is received by soeone with false spiritual DNA it is like the seed falling on hard ground…it cannot be received, almost like a transplant situation where an organ cannot be received because the DNA is off.
So I do think there is something to be gained by thinking about the nature of DNA as a messaging code that creates a sense of
wholeness and unity in a body. And I am not a theologian but these kinds of thoughts about spiritual DNA have occured to me at times.
I believe that everyone here who has said Christ is united to His Body is speaking truth and that it would not make sense that he would only be in the Eucharist in a spiritual or symbolic sense and that receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is necessary to strengthen the true believer because we are attacked on all those levels…physically and spiritually, emotionally, psychologically… As a community of believers this Sacred Banquet unites and restores the Mystical Body as much as ordinary food should restore and maintain the natural body.
Sorry this is long…
God Bless, MaryJohnZ*
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Sorry, i was delayed.
14When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. …”
(Luke 22)
The question, David, comes down to one of meaning. What did your Lord and mine mean when He said “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood”? It’s a question that has a war of controversy surrounding it, and the combatants on both sides are many.
I’d like to suggest that we stay out of the frey and look at it objectively, for you see, i’ve declared my neutrality in this war. Since i am unarmed, i’d like to ask that you put down your weapon, at least for the moment, and deal with me as though you were an ambassador of peace, rather than a soldier of conflict, trying to convince me to make an alliance with you. That is, let’s make this a thoughtful, reasoned discussion, instead of another battle leaving one of us casualties of the war.
Does that sound like a good proposal? If so, let me know if you would like to ask me questions about what Jesus meant, first; or begin by asking me questions. Let’s make friends, not war.
http://www.peacesymbol.org/peace_symbol/img/peace_symbol_7.gif
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
My guess, Mary, is that asking what kind of DNA a soul has is like asking what the color blue sounds like. It seems to me a confusion of categories. If a soul has no atoms, then it has no DNA, for DNA is composed of atoms.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Now, if you were using the acronym DNA metaphorically, rather than literally, then my understanding of your words will take on a new meaning. They are quite beautiful and thought provoking.
In which sense did you mean to use the acronym, Mary–the literal sense or the metaphorical sense? Were you saying something about the soul is DNA, or something about the soul is like DNA?
C
clmowry
Guest
The bible.
In the beginning their was the Word…throgh Him… all things were made. i.e. Christ had no DNA.
Christ was born i.e. He had DNA.
Christ could walk through walls and change His appearance. Christ ascended into Heaven. Someday there wiil be a new heaven and earth. We will have new glorified bodies. etc.
Christ likely does not have a “human” body any longer. He has a “glorified” body which defies the laws of physics.
Chuc
In the beginning their was the Word…throgh Him… all things were made. i.e. Christ had no DNA.
Christ was born i.e. He had DNA.
Christ could walk through walls and change His appearance. Christ ascended into Heaven. Someday there wiil be a new heaven and earth. We will have new glorified bodies. etc.
Christ likely does not have a “human” body any longer. He has a “glorified” body which defies the laws of physics.
Chuc
On what evidence do you base your doubt, Chuck?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Are you saying, Chuck, that since Christ could ascend into heaven, His physical body must have been made of different stuff than yours or mine?
P
Pax
Guest
God cannot go against His own nature…that is impossible. Likewise, God is not a god of contradiction. He cannot create a square circle. The area of contradiction could appear to be a bit sticky when it comes to the discussion we are involved in. Nevertheless, we sometimes only have perceived contradictions such as God making something out of nothing, His eternal nature, the Trinity, God becoming man, and Jesus within the Eucharist. These are all difficult to understand, but they are not true contradictions. We have God’s word on these things and He is not a god of contradiction.Is there anything that is impossible for God, Pax?
J
jmcrae
Guest
I mean that something that has the atoms of bread is Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity.Do you mean the atoms of Jesus’ body transform into the atoms of bread? or do you mean something else?
That’s as much of it as I understand - I dare not go any further than to say just that.
C
clmowry
Guest
I’m suggesting that since Christ is in Heaven and since it appears that Heaven is not a “physical” realm, at least not in the same sense that the earth is a physical realm that what we know of physical objects on Earth tells us very little, perhaps nothing, of what a Heavenly Body might be made.
Jesus’ Earthly body was just like ours, same as Elijah’s or Mary’s.
But that doesn’t tell he anything about what constitutes a glorified ressurrected body assended to heaven or a human body that has been “assumed” into heaven.
We are told I believe that angels are spiritual heavenly creatures, yet in the scriptures they appear real enough when here on earth.
Perhaps a Glorified Ressurected Body has a similar nature?
Chuck
Jesus’ Earthly body was just like ours, same as Elijah’s or Mary’s.
But that doesn’t tell he anything about what constitutes a glorified ressurrected body assended to heaven or a human body that has been “assumed” into heaven.
We are told I believe that angels are spiritual heavenly creatures, yet in the scriptures they appear real enough when here on earth.
Perhaps a Glorified Ressurected Body has a similar nature?
Chuck
Are you saying, Chuck, that since Christ could ascend into heaven, His physical body must have been made of different stuff than yours or mine?
P
Pax
Guest
I’ve been reading a little of St. Augustine and some of his thoughts may be pertinent to this discussion. Reason and logic are all very important, but they can lead to incorrect inferences. Likewise, the truth is what is most important. When it comes to miracles we can only accept them as true and then attempt perhaps to understand their meaning and depth through reason.
The term transubstantiation was first used around 1079. The exploration of the idea of substance and accidents and transubstantiation was not for the purpose of determining whether or not the miracle of the Eucharist happens, nor was it designed to prove that the miracle happens, or could happen. The miracle was already believed and has always been believed within Christianity.
The purpose of the theological exploration was to appreciate the change for what it is. All Christians had already and always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The explorations into this miracle simply raised questions as to how exactly Jesus was present. The only explanation that is consistent with Jesus words “This is my body…this is my blood” is that of transubstantiation.
It should not be assumed that the term and its references to accidents and substance can or should be used as the starting point for belief in the Eucharist. The terms were never the starting point for the belief that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
I believe that this entire discussion has been attempting to do just that. It is illogical to use this as a starting point for belief when it was never used or intended for that purpose. The same applies to our understandings of the Trinity. We know that their are three person in one God. We have some theological explorations that give hints “about” the Trinity, but the mystery remains. And so it is with the Eucharist. We have a theological exploration that tells us something about the real presence, but much of the mystery remains. The explanation is not the cause for our belief and we should not attempt to use it that way.
We all know that the sun shines its light upon us and that it warms the earth. We do not use physics and its explanations of fusion reactions to prove that the sun shines upon the earth. We instead use physics in an attempt to understand just what it is that is going on within the sun that is causing its light and heat. We already know that the sun shines upon the earth. Likewise, we already know, from scripture and tradition, that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
I do not think that we will ever get anywhere trying to prove or establish the miracle of the Eucharist by exploring transubstantiation. That is a little like putting the cart before the horse.
The term transubstantiation was first used around 1079. The exploration of the idea of substance and accidents and transubstantiation was not for the purpose of determining whether or not the miracle of the Eucharist happens, nor was it designed to prove that the miracle happens, or could happen. The miracle was already believed and has always been believed within Christianity.
The purpose of the theological exploration was to appreciate the change for what it is. All Christians had already and always believed that Jesus was truly present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The explorations into this miracle simply raised questions as to how exactly Jesus was present. The only explanation that is consistent with Jesus words “This is my body…this is my blood” is that of transubstantiation.
It should not be assumed that the term and its references to accidents and substance can or should be used as the starting point for belief in the Eucharist. The terms were never the starting point for the belief that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
I believe that this entire discussion has been attempting to do just that. It is illogical to use this as a starting point for belief when it was never used or intended for that purpose. The same applies to our understandings of the Trinity. We know that their are three person in one God. We have some theological explorations that give hints “about” the Trinity, but the mystery remains. And so it is with the Eucharist. We have a theological exploration that tells us something about the real presence, but much of the mystery remains. The explanation is not the cause for our belief and we should not attempt to use it that way.
We all know that the sun shines its light upon us and that it warms the earth. We do not use physics and its explanations of fusion reactions to prove that the sun shines upon the earth. We instead use physics in an attempt to understand just what it is that is going on within the sun that is causing its light and heat. We already know that the sun shines upon the earth. Likewise, we already know, from scripture and tradition, that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
I do not think that we will ever get anywhere trying to prove or establish the miracle of the Eucharist by exploring transubstantiation. That is a little like putting the cart before the horse.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
well, I am saying it in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. The soul is not made up of DNA, yet even in Genesis God talks about the 'seed of the woman" , and in the bok of revelations it talks about the Woman, and how Satan is in battle with the Woman and all her seed. Now you can interpret the “Woman” as the church who is the bride of Christ who gives us the sacrament of Baptism, feed us with the Eucharist and her storehouse of teachings, bathes us in the confessional, annoints us with oil at Confirmation, etc… We are God’s children, “His seed” through His church.Now, if you were using the acronym DNA metaphorically, rather than literally, then my understanding of your words will take on a new meaning. They are quite beautiful and thought provoking.
In which sense did you mean to use the acronym, Mary–the literal sense or the metaphorical sense? Were you saying something about the soul is DNA, or something about the soul is like DNA?
The other level of meaning is the Blessed Mother, who has an ofice of Universal Motherhood and so when we are in God’s family she is our Mother and guide and advocate. So you can see that just as in the physical world genetic materials are passed on which form our physical makeup and mark us, in a spiritual sense the Holy Spirit working through the Blessed Mother and the Church give us this inheritance of material,
or ‘DNA’ which forms us according to the pattern of Christ I believe the spirtual makeup of a person’s soul is principled on how they live and act and believe.
If someone is living, acting and believing in a Godly manner then they do possess the markings or spiritual DNA which would cause Christ to say “I know you”…
If a person is not living in a Christ-like way, their soul is probably
marked differently and may even have a sense of being spiritually deformed. But it goes to say that even people outside of the Catholic faith can be living as best they ‘know how according to a desire to please God’ and so that desire probably is a chief mark or principle part of this 'DNA".
If their idea of pleasing God is off due to no fault of theirs but to how they were brought up that would mitigate any guilt or quality in their soul which had disfigured or crippled it, which is why we can’t judge the spiritual condition of another soul. But this is all very complex to think about…and I hope you may be getting what I mean…
At any rate I think the whole analogy with water, ice, steam is going to be off because it is a non-living thing and having a soul in a body adds a level of substance to a being that changes things.
Mainly because water, ice and steam have no consciousness.
The metamorphosis of a caterpilar into a butterfly is carried through by that physical genetic mark which ‘commands’ the atoms in the cells of the caterpillar to make the necessary changes.
For a person with a soul there is a sense that conscious decisions and attitudes ‘command’ the form of that soul.Living a ‘life in the Holy Spirit’ may create a condition in our physical cells so that they are made into a spiritual environment and thus integrated into our souls to a high degree with holiness so that degeneration is stymied and blocked as in the incoruptibles.
Since Christ was God Made Man, His cells and Dna would be under His complete command and would have been totally integrated into His Divinity so that each cell in His Body would have been a temple of sorts…living stones… and as such he has complete command over them in His Glorified Body.
Of course I am using my own mind to conceive this and can not completely comprehend what that all means but it certainly would mean His Body, which labored and died for us is now a Divine Chariot that he rides as HE WILLS and if He wants to ride it into the unleavened bread on our altars then He can. I can not comprehend that kind of power or that kind of self-sacrificing Love.
I can think about it, meditate upon it and pray to Adore Him in a proper manner. I don’t think my mind is capable of completely fathoming such a thing.
It is the type of thing that makes you 'tremble". I am sure I feel totally inadequate as to comprehending the Sancitity in the Body of the Risen Saviour.
GodBless, MaryJohnZ
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Sounds reasonable to me, Pax! God cannot possibly say, think, or do anything contrary to His character, nor anything self-contradictory, nor anything absurd. As the writer of Hebrews tells us:
… it is impossible for God to lie …*(Hebrews 6:18)*I also agree that there is a difference between an apparent contradiction and a real one. Please tell me, Pax, whether you think this either a real or an apparent contradiction:
I can understand a soul existing without atoms, for a body is made of atoms but a soul has no atoms. I find no contradiction in the idea of a disembodied soul.
What i cannot understand is a body existing without atoms. It seems a very real contradiction to believe in such an atomless body, for that would be a body without a body, or a disembodied body. Why is that idea not self-contradictory, or even absurd, like a square circle, Pax?
I mean, is it impossible for God to make an a bodiless body?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Be not afraid, JM! Neither shrink back in fear, for why should anyone have anything to fear from the truth?I mean that something that has the atoms of bread is Jesus Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity.
That’s as much of it as I understand - I dare not go any further than to say just that.
It seems to me that the something of which you speak must be something. Does this sound true?
P
Pax
Guest
The problem is within our knowledge and understanding of the glorified body. The nature of the atom as we understand it to be in our own bodies, may not be the same as that of a glorified body. This is something that has not been revealed to us by God. What we do know, however, is that we will be changed. It is the exact nature and essence of the change that we do not know or understand.
We can only guess at some things because we know that Jesus rose from the dead and that his body was alive again. Jesus resurrected body was different from our own in some ways. We simply don’t know what those differences may or may not be at an atomic level. We only know that his body is no longer subject to the same limits that ours are. The post resurrection miracles associated with his body have already been mentioned in this regard.
There is also the element of what it means for Jesus to be “sacramentally” present in the Eucharist. Jesus gave us a covenant oath promising to literally feed us with his body and blood in John chapter 6. He then states at the Last Supper that “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus never tells us the details of the “how.” Sacraments are covenant oaths that have an outward sign. Baptism has water and the Eucharist has bread and wine. The signs speak to an inner reality that is not visible. This is all related to God’s grace. Grace cannot be seen, but its effects are real.
When God says that He will do something, it happens. When Jesus says that the bread and wine are his body and blood then that is what they are. The miraculous aspects and details of this are not subject to the observation of science. We are unable to look upon the face of God lest we die. We are allowed to recieve Jesus in his fully glorified state, but we are not allowed to see him lest we die.
Those that saw Jesus after the resurrection did not see Jesus in his fully glorified state. The transfiguration gave a glimpse of his glory, but even that was a far cry from what we will see of him in heaven. To see Jesus fully glorified would be seeing the Father and the Holy Spirit at the same time. This we cannot do this side of heaven. Jesus is hidden by the accidents of bread and wine. We cannot look upon him in his heavenly glory, otherwise we would already be enjoying the beatific vision and much would already have been revealed. We would literally be in heaven. Instead, Jesus comes to us. The Eucharist is where heaven and earth touch, but they are not fully integrated with one another.
I hope this helps.
We can only guess at some things because we know that Jesus rose from the dead and that his body was alive again. Jesus resurrected body was different from our own in some ways. We simply don’t know what those differences may or may not be at an atomic level. We only know that his body is no longer subject to the same limits that ours are. The post resurrection miracles associated with his body have already been mentioned in this regard.
There is also the element of what it means for Jesus to be “sacramentally” present in the Eucharist. Jesus gave us a covenant oath promising to literally feed us with his body and blood in John chapter 6. He then states at the Last Supper that “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus never tells us the details of the “how.” Sacraments are covenant oaths that have an outward sign. Baptism has water and the Eucharist has bread and wine. The signs speak to an inner reality that is not visible. This is all related to God’s grace. Grace cannot be seen, but its effects are real.
When God says that He will do something, it happens. When Jesus says that the bread and wine are his body and blood then that is what they are. The miraculous aspects and details of this are not subject to the observation of science. We are unable to look upon the face of God lest we die. We are allowed to recieve Jesus in his fully glorified state, but we are not allowed to see him lest we die.
Those that saw Jesus after the resurrection did not see Jesus in his fully glorified state. The transfiguration gave a glimpse of his glory, but even that was a far cry from what we will see of him in heaven. To see Jesus fully glorified would be seeing the Father and the Holy Spirit at the same time. This we cannot do this side of heaven. Jesus is hidden by the accidents of bread and wine. We cannot look upon him in his heavenly glory, otherwise we would already be enjoying the beatific vision and much would already have been revealed. We would literally be in heaven. Instead, Jesus comes to us. The Eucharist is where heaven and earth touch, but they are not fully integrated with one another.
I hope this helps.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
You are bring up some extremely interesting ideas. I mean, i, for one, want to know what existence will be like on the other side of eternity. I long to know what will it be like as a disembodied soul, what it will be like to be reunited with my body, that is not my body, but something that will never feel pain and never grow old for ever and ever. I like how that old hymn puts it (do Catholics sing it, too?):
When we’ve been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the son
We’ll have no less days to sing God’s praise
Then when we’d first begun
However, i don’t think we have to shrug our shoulders and say, “Who can say?” and leave it at that. You or i don’t have to be in heaven to know what Jesus is like. We have the descriptions in the Bible that describe Him. He did not have the appearance of a an atomless spirit. Outside His tomb, on the road to Emmaus, in the locked room, on the hill where He ascended, He looked like a man, sounded like a man, felt like a man, ate like a man.
P
Pax
Guest
Soc,
I’ve sung the hymn many times at my parish.
I’ve sung the hymn many times at my parish.
- Status