Jesus' Resurrected Body: Superfluous? Functioning? Facade?

[Kliska]

Oh get over yourself. It’s an apologetics forum. Apologetics comes from the Greek “apologia” which means to defend. You’re supposed to be defending your faith. I’m merely pointing out what I genuinely see as logical flaws in your religious doctrine.

I haven’t called any one names. I haven’t used any bad language. I’ve put forth criticisms of Catholic doctrine. You might want to try to be less emotional in your responses and actually deal with the arguments instead of leaping straight to ad hominem. It makes your faith look weak.

'lad; you know that you are being rude and emotional in your questions and in your receptions of the answers provided. You think that you are in attack mode and you are asking questions to which you really don’t want answered unless they line up with your bias. You refuse to discuss any aspect of the truth that leads to the answers you claim you seek. You are like someone who walks into the middle of the conversation and demands to know what is under discussion. When the people involved start to tell you, you stop them and demand to know what you walked in on. They explain they need to give you a background so you will understand, but you just keep screaming at them to tell you what they were talking about when you walked in.

Then when they tell you, as they guessed, you have no clue what they are talking about, so you yell at them that it can’t really be what they were talking about because you don’t understand it. They start to give you the information you need to understand, and you stop them and stomp your foot and demand to be told what they were talking about, which they’ve already done. It’s an endless loop.

You’re wasting everyone’s time. Good luck finding whatever it is you claim you are seeking.

 

[Usagi]

Vic,

We seem to agree that Jesus, as God, does not need to have a body to exist.

As a human (body-soul composite), Jesus, like the saints, can exist as a disembodied soul but isn’t complete without a body. I think that’s the sense in which TimothyH said that Jesus needs His body to live – not to exist, but to be other than dead in the sense of body and soul being separated. As you probably know, Catholics don’t believe the soul ever ceases to exist or even loses consciousness at physical death, so “living” and “dead” just refer to whether the body and soul are attached.

It is a key point of the Christian (and especially Catholic) doctrine of the Incarnation that God really became a human being. He didn’t just wear a suit temporarily and later discard it. Jesus’ human soul and body are integral to Him forevermore, even if he doesn’t strictly need them. The “flaw” you are pointing out is no such thing.

The reason I keep bringing up our resurrected bodies is that His and ours are supposed to be of a kind. It’s not that He’s a god who needs no body and we’re humans who will. Our bodies, too, will not need to respire, digest, or circulate to stay alive, since that would imply the possibility of deprivation and physical death in Heaven. Nevertheless we will have bodies, just as He does, because having bodies is part of being human.

Usagi

 

[vicwestlad]

Kliska:

'lad; you know that you are being rude and emotional in your questions and in your receptions of the answers provided. You think that you are in attack mode and you are asking questions to which you really don’t want answered unless they line up with your bias. You refuse to discuss any aspect of the truth that leads to the answers you claim you seek. You are like someone who walks into the middle of the conversation and demands to know what is under discussion. When the people involved start to tell you, you stop them and demand to know what you walked in on. They explain they need to give you a background so you will understand, but you just keep screaming at them to tell you what they were talking about when you walked in.

Then when they tell you, as they guessed, you have no clue what they are talking about, so you yell at them that it can’t really be what they were talking about because you don’t understand it. They start to give you the information you need to understand, and you stop them and stomp your foot and demand to be told what they were talking about, which they’ve already done. It’s an endless loop.

You’re wasting everyone’s time. Good luck finding whatever it is you claim you are seeking.

Lol. “screaming”? Emote much?

Yet another who can’t deal with the arguments (you avoided a bunch of questions) and just gets on to have a go at me and attack my character. Don’t worry, I’m a big boy. I can take it. It’s just funny that you’d waste your time saying derogatory things about me when you could just ignore the thread.

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

We seem to agree that Jesus, as God, does not need to have a body to exist.

Agreed

Usagi:

As a human (body-soul composite), Jesus, like the saints, can exist as a disembodied soul but isn’t complete without a body. I think that’s the sense in which TimothyH said that Jesus needs His body to live – not to exist, but to be other than dead in the sense of body and soul being separated.

Ok. Can you tell me a little more about the distinction you’re making between “live” and “exist”.

And, can you explain how a perfect being could be “incomplete”? That might be a toughy I’m thinking.

Usagi:

As you probably know, Catholics don’t believe the soul ever ceases to exist or even loses consciousness at physical death, so “living” and “dead” just refer to whether the body and soul are attached.

Right.

Usagi:

t is a key point of the Christian (and especially Catholic) doctrine of the Incarnation that God really became a human being. He didn’t just wear a suit temporarily and later discard it. Jesus’ human soul and body are integral to Him forevermore, even if he doesn’t strictly need them.

Well “integral” means necessary to make something complete. So, I’ll wait to see your answer about how a perfect being can be “incomplete”.

Also, I’d like to ask why it’s necessary to “complete” Jesus now when he existed for billions of years (and beyond) quite adequately without it? Not sure you’ve explained that sudden necessity.

Usagi:

Our bodies, too, will not need to respire, digest, or circulate to stay alive, since that would imply the possibility of deprivation and physical death in Heaven. Nevertheless we will have bodies, just as He does, because having bodies is part of being human.

So we will have non-functioning lungs, hearts, livers, etc?

One question is, will we have veins visible in our wrists? Will there be blood flowing through them or will they be collapsed veins?

 

[Kliska]

Lol. “screaming”? Emote much?

Thou protesteth too much, me thinks.

Yet another who can’t deal with the arguments (you avoided a bunch of questions) and just gets on to have a go at me and attack my character. Don’t worry, I’m a big boy. I can take it. It’s just funny that you’d waste your time saying derogatory things about me when you could just ignore the thread.

I attack your character because your character is in need of attack, as is your logic. As to being a big boy, you are acting like a teenager that refuses to listen to anyone older than them because it would be “uncool.” Another part of the whole picture that you are apparently missing is the fact that people actually care about you on this board, because to us, this is not a game as it is to you. It is a matter of salvation vs. damnation. If you die rejecting Jesus and all He has done for you, including raising from the dead in a physical manner, it’s not going to go well for you.

The fact that you posted doesn’t waste our time, you as a human being in the image of God doesn’t waste our time, it is the ceaseless foot stomping, and circular logic.

 

[Usagi]

Agreed

Ok. Can you tell me a little more about the distinction you’re making between “live” and “exist”.

To “live,” for a human, is to have body and soul together, not separated.

To “exist” is, well, to exist, period.

Jesus, as a human, needs his body and soul together to live in the human sense, even though He exists eternally as God without needing a human soul or body at all.

And, can you explain how a perfect being could be “incomplete”? That might be a toughy I’m thinking.

As you correctly surmise, God-as-God is complete in Himself and needs nothing.

When the Son took on humanity, however, things changed a little (without affecting God-as-God). Obviously He chose to take on certain human limitations in His earthly life. He grieved, felt anxiety and physical pain, and died. Post-Resurrection His humanity is perfected as well, so He doesn’t necessarily have those same limitations, but part of the perfection of humanity is to have a perfected body. Jesus the perfect man would not be perfect, would indeed be incomplete, without His body.

Also, I’d like to ask why it’s necessary to “complete” Jesus now when he existed for billions of years (and beyond) quite adequately without it? Not sure you’ve explained that sudden necessity.

See above. He was and is always complete in His divinity, but complete humanity (now that He has chosen to assume our nature as well) requires a body.

So we will have non-functioning lungs, hearts, livers, etc?

One question is, will we have veins visible in our wrists? Will there be blood flowing through them or will they be collapsed veins?

I realize this is the heart of your question/objection and I’m not trying to cop out, but that is something we just don’t know for sure. We are told that we will have our real bodies and that there will be no suffering or deprivation or death in that life. However you want to put those things together is up to you until we actually get there.

Usagi

 

[vicwestlad]

Kliska:

I attack your character because your character is in need of attack

Fascinating

Kliska:

If you die rejecting Jesus and all He has done for you, including raising from the dead in a physical manner, it’s not going to go well for you

Lol. Sounds like a threat. So, I carefully avoid any behaviour that would cause suffering to another human being, I take time to help those in need, I work for human rights and the betterment of the human condition for all humanity, tell me something I might have done that means I deserve to suffer horribly day and night for ever and ever? Hmmm?

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

To “live,” for a human, is to have body and soul together, not separated.

To “exist” is, well, to exist, period.

Jesus, as a human, needs his body and soul together to live in the human sense

Ok, but you’re still begging the question, why does Jesus need to live “in the human sense”. Why can’t he be content with living as a god again? After all, his work of salvation, which is what he needed his human existence for, has been accomplished.

Usagi:

even though He exists eternally as God without needing a human soul or body at all.

Yeah, I don’t know if this is a route that’s going to make sense. It’s almost like he’s playing two characters in a play. When he’s playing character “A”, he doesn’t need a body at all. It’s superfluous. However, when he’s playing character “B” he does need one. But he’s not playing characters. He exists as God all the time because he IS God and is complete all the time. You might have to explain this a little better 'cause I’m not sure the distinction is logically valid.

Usagi:

When the Son took on humanity, however, things changed a little (without affecting God-as-God).

This seems self-contradictory. Things changed for God but God wasn’t affected in any way. You can’t say it changed for Jesus but not for God since Jesus IS God.

Usagi:

Post-Resurrection His humanity is perfected as well, so He doesn’t necessarily have those same limitations, but part of the perfection of humanity is to have a perfected body.

I’m not sure the word “perfect” could be applied to a human body. What would make a human body perfect? Is it solely because it wouldn’t stop working any more?

Usagi:

Jesus the perfect man would not be perfect, would indeed be incomplete, without His body.

Yeah, it’s interesting to say that a being which was perfect in itself, could suddenly become perfect only if a new extension of itself was perfect.

And answer me this. Was Jesus not perfect for three days and three nights?

Usagi:

I realize this is the heart of your question/objection and I’m not trying to cop out, but that is something we just don’t know for sure.

Here’s the problem, though. I maintain that it doesn’t matter which way you go with this, there’s logical problems. If you don’t believe me, pick your best guess and we’ll go there.

 

[travissbeloved]

Everyone needs to stop feeding this troll…I cannot even believe this thread is still ongoing. This person is never going to be satisfied with an answer or admit that any of us has a good point. He is here to tear down and humiliate our faith and even the best apologists refuse to communicate with those who are as rude and attacking as this man.

 

[vicwestlad]

travisbeloved:

He is here to tear down and humiliate our faith and even the best apologists refuse to communicate with those who are as rude and attacking as this man.

You’re doing a better job than I ever could of humiliating your faith.

 

[tdgesq]

Ok so I have to point out to you, once again, that I’m not talking about why he became a man. I’m talking about after his earthly life. The point is it’s not necessary for him to have a human body now. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to get.

The distinction is meaningless for your questions, of which I think you are well aware. If God wants to be man, whether it is here on Earth or in heaven, he must have a body. A man is a rational animal. No body, no man. If God wants to be a man in heaven, it is necessary (non-superfluous) that he have a body. It appears you are the one having difficulty understanding what are very basic principles for most of us.

If you’re been paying attention to the thread and what I’ve been saying to you, you’d realize that TimothyH, just for one example, DOES think Jesus needs his human body to survive right now, as we speak.

It depends on what he means. If he means that Jesus needs a human body in heaven to survive as a man, then he’s right. No body, no man. Jesus’ human nature would still survive in the hypostatic union with God’s divine nature, but he wouldn’t be a man.

And it’s called being busy. I answer when time permits.

Time permits you to visit these forums often. You do realize that the forum tracks when you log in and log out, right? I went and looked at your profile to find out. What that shows me is you are having great difficulty formulating an answer - well - that and the answers themselves are also indicative.

1. You said, if Jesus wants to hang out in his human body in heaven he can choose to do so. My question was: Why would he do it? What would be the point if there’s no need for it?

Yes, and I also said this, which you conveniently neglected to include: “Jesus has a resurrected body for our benefit. To give us hope in our own resurrection.” The bottom line though is that He doesn’t need a reason. Maybe you like to eat strawberry ice cream. What’s your reason? You don’t need to eat strawberry ice cream. Then why do it? You are being “logically nonsensical” by eating strawberry ice cream. lol. This was all explained to you before. I can’t help it if you’re invincibly ignorant.

1. You said his body gives us hope for eternal life. As I said, since that’s already been accomplished by his appearance to the apostles, what use has it now?

No, I said it gives us hope in our own resurrection. It shows us that we will have human bodies in heaven, and not exist as disembodied souls; an historical Platonist view. It also shows the eternal love God has for the Son in his entirety, including both body and soul. Maybe you don’t think those are good enough reasons. So what. As I said before, nobody really cares about your opinion, and it’s pretty clear that’s the only argument you have.

I do have one final question: what do you believe you’ve accomplished here?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . when you could just ignore the thread.

 

[vicwestlad]

tdgesq:

If God wants to be man, whether it is here on Earth or in heaven, he must have a body.

Just not true and doesn’t make sense. To live in the physical universe an organism is required to process energy. That would not be required in a non-physical realm.

And this isn’t even an argument. It’s just a re-assertion of your position. It would make more sense if you said, if Jesus wanted to look like a man he would need a human body.

tdgesq:

A man is a rational animal. No body, no man.

And a god isn’t rational? What has this got to do with a god’s need for a human body? This is irrelevant.

tdgesq:

If God wants to be a man in heaven, it is necessary (non-superfluous) that he have a body

Part of being a man is having functioning lungs, a beating heart, blood flowing through your veins, etc. So the question is, when he dons his man-body in heaven are these functions taking place, do you think, or do his lungs, heart, and veins serve no purpose?

tdgesq:

Time permits you to visit these forums often. You do realize that the forum tracks when you log in and log out, right? I went and looked at your profile to find out. What that shows me is you are having great difficulty formulating an answer - well - that and the answers themselves are also indicative.

Lol. You haven’t a clue. Like I said, I answer when I have time. I may pop in to see what’s been said if I have a moment, but that doesn’t mean I have time to answer the posts. Don’t know where on earth you think you’re going with this but it’s rather trivial, desperate, and a little puerile.

tdgesq:

The bottom line though is that He doesn’t need a reason. Maybe you like to eat strawberry ice cream. What’s your reason?

Huh? We eat ice cream because it produces chemical effects which make us feel better. We get a high from it. Feel free to explain how you think this is analogous to Jesus going into his man body. That could get interesting.

tdgesq:

You are being “logically nonsensical” by eating strawberry ice cream. lol. This was all explained to you before. I can’t help it if you’re invincibly ignorant.

Snide, desperate, name-calling aside, the ignorance is on your part. It’s perfectly logical for us to do things that bring us pleasure. Humans are emotional creatures and we desire to increase our feelings of pleasure. Ice cream can accomplish this.

Really tdesq, if this preposterous analogy of Jesus using a man body in heaven to a human eating ice cream is the best you can come up with, you’re argument is bankrupt.

tdgesq:

It shows us that we will have human bodies in heaven, and not exist as disembodied souls; an historical Platonist view

Well it doesn’t on an on going basis because you can’t see his human body any more. It was only seen briefly after the resurrection. As I pointed out, since this has already been accomplished, it’s not needed for this any more.

tdgesq:

I do have one final question: what do you believe you’ve accomplished here?

Partly satisfied my curiosity.

 

[travissbeloved]

You’re doing a better job than I ever could of humiliating your faith.

Why? Because I have standards when using apologetics? Jesus doesn’t say that we need to go out there and debate every single person who sits there and belittles us. I only stay in conversation with people who are reasonable and polite. You are ignorant and vulgar.

 

[vicwestlad]

travissbeloved:

Jesus doesn’t say that we need to go out there and debate every single person who sits there and belittles us.

No, he tells you to harass them and call them names instead of actually dealing with the arguments.

travissbeloved:

You are ignorant and vulgar.

Ahh, how sweet and Jesus-like of you.

And thanks for putting the thread at the top again

 

[travissbeloved]

No, he tells you to harass them and call them names instead of actually dealing with the arguments.

Ahh, how sweet and Jesus-like of you.

And thanks for putting the thread at the top again

So you don’t think the language you have used is vulgar? You are most certainly ignorant of the Truth. I’m not being rude, I’m telling the truth. It is not prudent to continue to argue with someone who is harassing the faith and using it in such a vulgar way. I wish I could persuade you to not be ignorant of the Truth but you are obviously quite stuck in your ways. Which is precisely why I think it is time to “stop feeding” as someone else said. This conversation is going absolutely nowhere because you don’t care about what any of us has to say. Apologetics is give and take, you just want to sit there and not budge…so what’s the point in trying to make you?

 

[TimothyH]

All, this short video will explain everything.

youtube.com/watch?v=sTSA_sWGM44

-Tim-

 

[Usagi]

Sorry for the delay, vicwestlad. Let’s tackle those latest questions of yours.

Ok, but you’re still begging the question, why does Jesus need to live “in the human sense”. Why can’t he be content with living as a god again? After all, his work of salvation, which is what he needed his human existence for, has been accomplished.

God the Son chose to become a human being, not just pretend for a little while.

Per God’s design, human souls exist forever and are meant to be joined with bodies.

Therefore, though God Himself needs nothing, having made the choice to become truly human he now has a human soul forever and a glorified human body to go with it.

Yeah, I don’t know if this is a route that’s going to make sense. It’s almost like he’s playing two characters in a play. When he’s playing character “A”, he doesn’t need a body at all. It’s superfluous. However, when he’s playing character “B” he does need one. But he’s not playing characters. He exists as God all the time because he IS God and is complete all the time. You might have to explain this a little better 'cause I’m not sure the distinction is logically valid.

Again, as God, He needs nothing external to Himself.

Having chosen to join a human nature to God the Son, He is bound by His prior decisions as to what a human nature includes and requires. Otherwise He’d just be faking humanity, and that is not what we believe He has done.

This seems self-contradictory. Things changed for God but God wasn’t affected in any way. You can’t say it changed for Jesus but not for God since Jesus IS God.

Adding a human nature to God did not change anything internally for God. The divine and human natures of Jesus are inseparable but still distinct from each other, not blended together.

I’m not sure the word “perfect” could be applied to a human body. What would make a human body perfect? Is it solely because it wouldn’t stop working any more?

“Perfected” might be the better word, since as you point out the bodies we have right now are far from perfect.

Also, even “perfected” just means “made perfect for its intended purpose,” not “made perfect in every possible way.” It’s perfect as a human body; that doesn’t mean it has all the same perfections as, say, a perfect blade of grass.

Yeah, it’s interesting to say that a being which was perfect in itself, could suddenly become perfect only if a new extension of itself was perfect.

God-as-God never lost any of His perfections, of course.

But Jesus as a human, while still morally perfect, chose to be subject to various human and earthly limitations; He was not notably more perfect physically or mentally than other humans. (Of course, he would sometimes call upon His divinity to perform acts that would be physically impossible or know things that are unknowable by ordinary means, but those were exceptions. He learned, felt hunger and thirst, and experienced pain and ultimately death just as we do.)

And answer me this. Was Jesus not perfect for three days and three nights?

His humanity was incomplete for a time in that He was disembodied, yes. That’s what happens when a human dies, and He chose to experience that. If He had just been God wearing a temporary human suit, He might have snapped back to pure divinity immediately, but that’s not what we believe and teach.

Here’s the problem, though. I maintain that it doesn’t matter which way you go with this, there’s logical problems. If you don’t believe me, pick your best guess and we’ll go there.

I think you’ve already gone there multiple times with multiple people, but if you want to go again, sure. Let me see if I have all the options down.

1. Jesus’ resurrected body is a complete human body (as we understand it now) with all biological functions intact and constantly active. Problematic in that it seems to imply the body would be subject to the various factors that can impair those biological functions, and thus subject to damage/deprivation/death, which we don’t believe is true of resurrected bodies.
2. Jesus’ resurrected body is a complete human body (as we understand it now) that only sometimes engages biological functions. It can smell but doesn’t die if it doesn’t breathe; enjoy food but doesn’t die if it doesn’t eat, etc. You find that problematic/absurd because it is hard to imagine lungs and veins sitting there but not actually doing their thing. I also find it weird but don’t think it’s logically self-contradictory.
3. Jesus’ resurrected body is a replica of the outside of a human body, without any internal organs or the biological functions associated with them. I’m okay with that as long as it’s what “resurrected human body” means for everyone; you find it problematic and call it a shell (which is reasonably accurate) or worse an illusion or appearance (which I don’t think are accurate).

Did I miss one?

Usagi

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

Sorry for the delay, vicwestlad. Let’s tackle those latest questions of yours.

No problem, Usagi.

Usagi:

God the Son chose to become a human being, not just pretend for a little while.

Hmmm…at this point I’m going to ask you for a definition of what you mean by a human being. The dictionary defines human being as a particular species of animal. What is an animal?

“A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli”

One of the requirements for any living organism is the ability to process energy. So, if you don’t like the dictionary definition of human being, let me know yours so we can compare.

Usagi:

Per God’s design, human souls exist forever and are meant to be joined with bodies.

Since the posts are already getting long, I’m going to suggest that we just confine our discussion to Jesus. That’s the point of the thread and I don’t really have a problem with the concept of non-god beings needing a body to function, even in the afterlife.

Usagi:

Therefore, though God Himself needs nothing, having made the choice to become truly human he now has a human soul forever and a glorified human body to go with it.

Ok, just want to flesh this out so I get you right. So Jesus has existed forever as a god-soul. But 2,000 years ago he took the form of a human body and also changed his soul to a god-soul and a human-soul combined? Just let me know if I’ve got you wrong here.

Question: What’s the difference between a man-soul and a god-soul?

Usagi:

Again, as God, He needs nothing external to Himself.

Having chosen to join a human nature to God the Son, He is bound by His prior decisions as to what a human nature includes and requires. Otherwise He’d just be faking humanity, and that is not what we believe He has done.

False dilemma I’m afraid. He could also just have taken human form to perform certain funtions and now doesn’t need it.

Furthermore, this is seeming to be self-contradictory. Previously you said:

Usagi:

He exists eternally as God without needing a human soul or body at all.

Yet you say, since he is bound by his decisions, he now needs a human body. So, in one breath you say he doesn’t need a human body, and then subsequently day he does. He doesn’t need one but he needs one. Can it really be both that he doesn’t need a human body but he needs one?

Usagi:

Adding a human nature to God did not change anything internally for God

Internally? Externally? These are surely physical terms. And I don’t think you can categorize a soul as “internal”. It’s like you’re staying, inside his skin he’s a god-soul. How can the soul of a god be internal?

Usagi:

The divine and human natures of Jesus are inseparable but still distinct from each other, not blended together.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. When people pray to Jesus, does he listen with his human ears?
2. When people pray to Jesus for intersession in the world, does he intercede with his human hands or with some kind of god-will?

Usagi:

Also, even “perfected” just means “made perfect for its intended purpose,” not “made perfect in every possible way.” It’s perfect as a human body; that doesn’t mean it has all the same perfections as, say, a perfect blade of grass.

I think this is highly problematic. Clearly a human body is made for processing energy and replicating through sexual means. It’s intended purpose is to breath and consume food-energy so that these are combined through a very complicated process to create a burning effect in the cells in order for them to carry out their functions which is fighting disease, repairing cells, etc, etc. All these functions are not needed in Heaven. How can this be said to be “perfected” for an afterlife where none of these functions obtain?

Usagi:

But Jesus as a human, while still morally perfect, chose to be subject to various human and earthly limitations; He was not notably more perfect physically or mentally than other humans. (Of course, he would sometimes call upon His divinity to perform acts that would be physically impossible or know things that are unknowable by ordinary means, but those were exceptions. He learned, felt hunger and thirst, and experienced pain and ultimately death just as we do.)

Mm hmm but that’s his earthly life. After his earthly mission had been accomplished, why would his god-nature only be perfect if this newly added physical extension is perfect when he never required it before to be perfect? See, I don’t think this adds up. Let’s say next week, Jesus decided to not use his human body any more. Would he be imperfect after that? I can’t see any way this is philosophically tenable.

Usagi:

His humanity was incomplete for a time in that He was disembodied, yes.

Ahhh but you’re preforming a slight of hand here. I didn’t ask if he was “incomplete”. I asked whether or not he was “imperfect” for those three days and three nights? One cannot be “perfect” and “imperfect” at the same time so what’s the answer to my actual question: Was he “perfect” or “imperfect” for those three days and nights?

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

I think you’ve already gone there multiple times with multiple people, but if you want to go again, sure.

They didn’t like the follow up questions and stopped part way through

Usagi:

1. Jesus’ resurrected body is a complete human body (as we understand it now) with all biological functions intact and constantly active. Problematic in that it seems to imply the body would be subject to the various factors that can impair those biological functions, and thus subject to damage/deprivation/death, which we don’t believe is true of resurrected bodies.

That actually wouldn’t be the main thrust of where I would go with this.

Usagi:

1. Jesus’ resurrected body is a complete human body (as we understand it now) that only sometimes engages biological functions. It can smell but doesn’t die if it doesn’t breathe; enjoy food but doesn’t die if it doesn’t eat, etc. You find that problematic/absurd because it is hard to imagine lungs and veins sitting there but not actually doing their thing. I also find it weird but don’t think it’s logically self-contradictory.

Problem is that these actions don’t make sense for a god who can do all those things without a human body. Yahweh smelled things in the Bible without a human nose. And to say that he “enjoyed” food would imply the possibility of emotional/well-being deficit in the absence of such activity. This doesn’t make sense for a perfect being.

And yes, the vein question is a difficult one. That’s maybe why you hesitate want to take a view on that. If there’s blood flowing through the veins then the heart is pumping, etc. If not, they are a hollow facade and their colour on the skin would be an illusion.

Usagi:

1. Jesus’ resurrected body is a replica of the outside of a human body, without any internal organs or the biological functions associated with them. I’m okay with that as long as it’s what “resurrected human body” means for everyone; you find it problematic and call it a shell (which is reasonably accurate) or worse an illusion or appearance (which I don’t think are accurate)

Tell me, if, in this case there were no internal organs, no blood flowing to the muscles, or through the veins, cells on the skin not performing any functions, the eyes not sending physical messages to the brain, etc, etc, how would this differ from an illusion?

Usagi:

Did I miss one?

Don’t think so. You did good.

Sorry. I don’t intend these to get long but it seems to happen organically.