Hi Steve. I mean he was spirit because he had risen from the dead. I said he had a body which is a glorious body. Remember Mary Magdelene did not recognize him on that fateful morning at the tomb and yet that was Jesus who spoke to him. So he was not exactly in his human body as per before the resurrection.
The Church is right to mean that he resurrect as body and soul but certainly this body now is not exactly the same as the one before the resurrection and yet it was still a body.
I would say CCC 365 is saying that a human is both body and soul. This does not contradict the person of Jesus.
Reuben (and Steve),
. Here is the crux of the matter from my own perspective in trying to truly resolve the differences in traditional Christian, as I was born into and believed, and Baha’i beliefs, which I might say “modified” my understanding and interpretation of events.
. There is a “problem” theologically in resolving these two interpretations. That is admitted. The traditional clearly states both the “ethereal” going and coming of Jesus, as inferred by “not using the door”, which denotes the purely “spiritual”, and the eating of fish and touching of Thomas. This problem exists, and is admitted.
. The Baha’i commentary of Abdul Baha states that the Resurrection was not of the body. So that states a definite and clear difference from the “literal”, or “face value” of the story told in the Gospels. We admit that and recognize that, too. No one is trying to gloss over or discount what is written.
. Where the various difficulties exist are in the “Now you see me. Now you don’t.” issues implied in the various “appearances”, to Mary, in the room, to the 500 believers who reported that they “saw” Jesus after the Resurrection, and also, perhaps most importantly, His final “disappearance”, or ascension.
. We are left to either be completely “bewildered” in the usual sense, and forced to accept these Gospel stories at face value, as I did growing up in the Christian Church, or to try and reconcile these visitations of Jesus and the telling of these accounts by those who “saw” Him, touched Him, experienced His presence, etc.
. If I may inject here the experience of Paul, he was not alone when this happened, as I recall.
"As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.” Acts 9:3–9, NIV
. Now what I am suggesting is that Paul did indeed experience the “glorified” Christ and did not imagine it. Those around him did not “see” Jesus in any form, and they also were not believers.
. Only believers reported that they “saw” Jesus after the crucifixion. There are no accounts of non-believers who “saw” Jesus.
. This leads me to believe that when people reported “seeing” Jesus there was a recognition similar in that which is “sensed” by believers today in the example of “Where ever two or more gather and make mention of Me, there I am also”. No one today that I know of reports “seeing” Him as did Mary, Paul, or the 500, etc.
. Ordinarily, when some one has died, we view the body and the person as simply “dead”, although some may sense the presence of their loved one with them, whether at the time of the funeral or later and elsewhere, not near the body.
. What I am suggesting is that the Reality of Christ still being alive, as in “He Lives!” is a very tangible experience with a real sense of “knowing” that He indeed is very much alive, despite His body being dead after the crucifixion. This “knowing” gives men faith. It is very important in the transformation of individuals and societies, altering their behavior, changing their values, how they live and die and provide for others. People do not die for a cause they do not believe in, and they need “proofs” of some sort, such as witnessing the behavior of those professing a set of beliefs.
. Until Thomas saw the believers “acting out” the love and teachings of Christ, sacrificing themselves for one another, showing him “their” wounds, both living as true followers of Christ and their willingness to die for their faith as martyrs, he would not believe.
. This allegorical interpretation does make some sense in the traditions of Middle East story telling. So does the part about his taking food, hearing their prayers, and communicating with them. My wife was from the Middle East, and there is a manner of storytelling of this nature which requires the listening audience to solve the mystery. It is not uncommon.
. So I am suggesting that in order to “solve” the puzzle of the literal and the allegorical understanding there may be more than what meets the eye (physical). This is, of course, rejected by simple literalism which does not take into account the cultural context of “story telling” which was prevalent then and now in Middle Eastern countries.
. By the time you translate such stories into other languages and other cultures, things typically change in meaning and understanding. This requires an open mind even to consider the possible reality of such an explanation, and even more to allow that such a plausible explanation may be more in keeping with reality than what is being communicated in the legend itself.
. It gives pause for thought…
