Jesus' Resurrected Body: Superfluous? Functioning? Facade?

[PeaceInChrist]

Summa theologica on the Incarnation:

newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

On the hypo static union:

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm

On the soul:

newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm

On the union of body and soul:

newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm

These should answer your questions thoroughly, if you read them all. I have found his writing difficult at times, though, Because I struggle with his use of philosophical terms.

 

[vicwestlad]

Summa theologica on the Incarnation:

newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

On the hypo static union:

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm

On the soul:

newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm

On the union of body and soul:

newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm

These should answer your questions thoroughly, if you read them all. I have found his writing difficult at times, though, Because I struggle with his use of philosophical terms.

They don’t appear to answer my questions regarding the need for a god to have a human body in the afterlife. For example, the fist link concerns the appropriateness of Jesus taking human form for the purpose of the crucifixion. That doesn’t answer my question, as I assume you can understand. If you think these links do answer my questions, please tell me, in your own words, what the answers are.

It’s lazy to argue by links. Sorry.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

They don’t appear to answer my questions regarding the need for a god to have a human body in the afterlife. For example, the fist link concerns the appropriateness of Jesus taking human form for the purpose of the crucifixion. That doesn’t answer my question, as I assume you can understand. If you think these links do answer my questions, please tell me, in your own words, what the answers are.

It’s lazy to argue by links. Sorry.

Firstly, who’s arguing? I would suppose you are here to understand catholic theology, not simply argue back and forth. Such arguments will go nowhere if one does not have the intention of understanding.

Secondly, if you read all the links, it will explain about the immortality of the soul, the union of the body and the soul, and the hypostatic union of Jesus’ body, soul, and divinity. The soul, and at the resurrection the body, are eternal, and so when the Logos took on flesh, it became an eternal union between His human and divine nature.

Lastly, “arguing”, as you so eloquently put it, from “links”, is perfectly fine if it points one charitably in the direction of understanding. Who better to help you understand, than Aquinas?

 

[vicwestlad]

PeaceInChrist:

Firstly, who’s arguing? I would suppose you are here to understand catholic theology, not simply argue back and forth.

I’m here to see if you can defend your faith against certain criticism. I know, how awful of me.

PeaceInChrist:

Secondly, if you read all the links, it will explain about the immortality of the soul, the union of the body and the soul, and the hypostatic union of Jesus’ body, soul, and divinity. The soul, and at the resurrection the body, are eternal, and so when the Logos took on flesh, it became an eternal union between His human and divine nature.

Yes, I know that’s the theology. I grew up Catholic. You’re links don’t appear to answer the question of what the point would be of a god continuing to use a human body after the mission had been accomplished on earth when it is essentially superfluous. There’s simply no need for a good to have lungs, a beating heart, etc.

PeaceInChrist:

Lastly, “arguing”, as you so eloquently put it

Using the word “arguing” is ineloquent? Sorry to offend you with such a vulgar word.

PeaceInChrist:

from “links”, is perfectly fine if it points one charitably in the direction of understanding.

It’s lazy. You’ve supposedly read them. Tell me how they answer the questions in the OP

PeaceInChrist:

Who better to help you understand, than Aquinas?

Aquinas believed Hell to be located in the centre of the Earth. Do you believe that?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Aquinas believed Hell to be located in the centre of the Earth. . .

Not wishing to be rude, just stating the obvious that here, it is “lazy” not to include links. Thank you so much.

 

[vicwestlad]

Not wishing to be rude, just stating the obvious that here, it is “lazy” not to include links. Thank you so much.

It’s lazy to ONLY include links. Thank you so much

 

[glendab]

I’m here to see if you can defend your faith against certain criticism. I know, how awful of me… I grew up Catholic… Aquinas believed Hell to be located in the centre of the Earth. Do you believe that?

Oh dear! Vic grew up Catholic and found that St. Thomas Aquinas made a boo-boo and now Vic’s smarter than both St. Thomas Aquinas and all Catholics who can’t see things the same way Vic does now that he has gotten so smart and educated by science that he no longer needs his faith!

Vic, would you honestly share WHY you left the Church? Not here of course - it is too far off the original thread started by you, but I must admit, I’m growing curious.

Glenda

 

[vicwestlad]

glendab:

Oh dear! Vic grew up Catholic and found that St. Thomas Aquinas made a boo-boo and now Vic’s smarter than both St. Thomas Aquinas and all Catholics who can’t see things the same way Vic does now that he has gotten so smart and educated by science that he no longer needs his faith!

Just can’t stay away huh?

glendab:

Vic, would you honestly share WHY you left the Church? Not here of course - it is too far off the original thread started by you, but I must admit, I’m growing curious.

Be happy to on another, more appropriate thread, or in private messages.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I’m here to see if you can defend your faith against certain criticism. I know, how awful of me.

Interesting. Why do you feel the need to do this, rather than read and understand actual theologians?

Yes, I know that’s the theology. I grew up Catholic. You’re links don’t appear to answer the question of what the point would be of a god continuing to use a human body after the mission had been accomplished on earth when it is essentially superfluous. There’s simply no need for a good to have lungs, a beating heart, etc.

Forgive me for being unclear. It seemed obvious, but this is coming from a catholic perspective. I could certainly have been more clear:

Since the body (eventually) and soul (always) are immortal, and God designed it this way, God abided by His own design, and once was enfleshed, shall have flesh and soul forever, just as all humans. He, however, also has the divine nature, in hypostatic union.

As to call it superfluous or ask why God needs a body and soul, He doesn’t need either. He could have remained pure, infinite Spirit and Being itself. But the human body and soul, which He chose to take on, are His design, are beautiful, and are meant to be glorified, as His now is. God wouldn’t “uncreate” His body and soul, because the body and soul are beautiful and eternal from the point of their creation.

Asking anything further, or really any sort of “why did God do this?” questions will go nowhere. It would be like asking why the universe has the constants it has, instead of being more chaotic like other theoretical universes. That can’t be fully answered by mortals. We can certainly figure out how things work, but the ‘why’ is impossible to grasp naturally.

Using the word “arguing” is ineloquent? Sorry to offend you with such a vulgar word.

The "eloquent referred to both quoted words. I should have put it after quoting you calling me lazy for “arguing from links”, even though I was merely trying to point you in the right direction. I request that you attempt to be more charitable.

It’s lazy. You’ve supposedly read them. Tell me how they answer the questions in the OP

Maybe it would be lazy if I were actually inclined to carry out a prolonged argument, point by point. But I don’t believe we’d get anywhere. Besides giving you the answer directly from a vision of God telling me the answer, I do not think anything further can be done than what I’ve already offered.

Aquinas believed Hell to be located in the centre of the Earth. Do you believe that?

His position on something related to geography has little to do with the present topic.

I feel that I have done what I can do. Perhaps others will offer you more, but it seems as though you received quite a few answers. Perhaps it is time to simply conclude that you do not agree with our reasoning, and leave it at that?

 

[glendab]

To all those who have tried to help Vic find his lost faith by argumentation with him: It is very difficult and can even be dangerous to try and save a drowning man who is still flailing. He must simply stop screaming and flailing on his own and then it is safe to swim out to him and rescue him. Otherwise you could risk drowning yourself in the attempt. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t throw a life preserver to him, but if he throws it away, there is nothing one can do.

Vic, I sincerely hope you DO share why you left the Church on another thread, but no, I won’t be PMing anyone here. Personal boundaries. Don’t take it personal.

Good luck and God Bless.

Glenda

 

[Usagi]

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.

That certainly works for humans during earthly life. I’m not sure that it applies to the resurrected life, though. Of course, that is one of our central issues.

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.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that even humans in the afterlife “need a body to function.” Most of the saints are supposed to be disembodied souls right now, after all. But they must eventually have bodies restored in order to be complete human beings. Humans, unlike God and angels on the one hand and unlike other forms of mortal life on the other, have both material and spiritual components.

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?

Generally we don’t talk about God having (or being) a soul; that’s more of a human thing. But God is a pure spirit, which a human soul also is, so that kinda works. Just a difference in terminology.

At the Incarnation, God created a completely new human soul and body and sort of “grafted it on,” I guess, to the pre-existing Person of the Son, in such a way that the following rules are observed:

1. Jesus remains only one person, one “who” that can be interacted with. This is in contrast to the Trinity as a whole, which is three “whos” that can interact with each other.
2. Jesus however has two distinct natures, two “whats” of what he is – human and divine. They don’t mix or blend together but they are joined inseparably from the Incarnation onward. (Again, this is in contrast to the Trinity. God is three “whos” but one “what”; Jesus is one “who” (the same one as the second “who” of the Trinity) but two “whats.”)
3. The union between the two natures is such that things that technically happened to only one of the two can still be said to be true of the whole Person. Thus, Jesus the person was born and suffered and died, even though God has no origin, is impassible, and cannot die. Conversely, it can be said that a human being who only came into existence 2000 years ago is now the rightful king of the universe and judge of souls. (That, in orthodox thought, is why Paul could talk of Jesus being “rewarded” with those prerogatives even though He had always possessed them previously as God – they were, for the first time, being awarded to a man.)

A human soul is created and is part of a body-soul composite. God’s soul or spirit is eternal and has no material counterpart.

[continued]

 

[Usagi]

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

Certainly He could. But that’s not what we believe He actually did. “Became man” means way more than “put on a costume for a little while.”

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

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?

He does not need one in the absolute sense, as though He would stop existing otherwise. He “needs” one in order to be a complete human, now that He has chosen to be that. The not needing and the needing are on two different levels.

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?

It is an imprecise image, I’ll admit, but what I’m saying is that if you imagine God as a ball, the human nature of Jesus is like a second ball or bubble stuck onto the outside. It doesn’t change anything about the original ball, just adds to it.

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. When people pray to Jesus, does he listen with his human ears?

He presumably could, but I wouldn’t imagine that He generally does, no.

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

The latter, of course.

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?

I don’t have nearly as big a problem with this as you seem to.

The current human body is meant to do all those things in an earthly environment.

What a glorified body is meant to do in a Heavenly environment is completely unknown.

I do not feel logically compelled to hold that the current form of the human body is the only thing that could possibly qualify as a “real human body,” given that I already believe in the concept of the “resurrection body.”

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.

You are combining things that are meant to be kept distinct. Jesus’ divine nature has never been and can never be rendered imperfect, even if the human nature attached to it experiences imperfection. The only point on which I am granting the existence of some imperfection is Jesus’ human body and soul when they were briefly separated.

It’s part of why we teach that the Eucharist is not just Jesus’ flesh in the Host and Jesus’ blood in the chalice, but the entire Jesus (“Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity”) in the smallest particle of either one. None of those four things will ever be separated from each other again.

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?

I didn’t want to give you the wrong impression about “perfect,” as it feels like you’re trying to trap me into something. But yes, a disembodied human soul (including that of Jesus) is not perfect without its body.

Usagi

 

[Aloysium]

To some nice posts, I would just add that like a caterpillar trying to imagine/describe what it will be like being a butterfly, finding it difficult to do so does not make it any less true…

 

[glendab]

Usagi, please don’t take this in anyway other than concern, but Vic IS beginning to get you too wet to swim.

That certainly works for humans during earthly life. I’m not sure that it applies to the resurrected life, though. Of course, that is one of our central issues. On the other hand, I don’t believe that even humans in the afterlife “need a body to function.” Most of the saints are supposed to be disembodied souls right now, after all. But they must eventually have bodies restored in order to be complete human beings. Humans, unlike God and angels on the one hand and unlike other forms of mortal life on the other, have both material and spiritual components…
Generally we don’t talk about God having (or being) a soul; that’s more of a human thing. But God is a pure spirit, which a human soul also is, so that kinda works. Just a difference in terminology…
At the Incarnation, God created a completely new human soul and body and sort of “grafted it on,” I guess, to the pre-existing Person of the Son, in such a way that the following rules are observed:…

These things you’ve said are directly against Catholic teaching and understanding. If you hadn’t tangled with the drowning man, you wouldn’t be all wet. This is I think, however, his intended purpose: to confuse you till you begin to deny basic truths of the Church until you’re so thoroughly confused you give up. It is a technique. Vic isn’t the only one to use such tactics. They work obviously.

God does have a soul as in Body Blood Soul and Divinity contained in the Blessed Sacrament. Their are Saints in Heaven who have** bodies**, the Blessed Virgin Mary being the foremost example. At the Incarnation there was “no grafting” in of anything nor was God Creating Himself. He was already one God in 3 Divine persons but He was assuming human nature that we might be saved, flesh and bone, soul and all. He nursed at the Blessed Virgin’s breast.

Usagi, please be more careful about what you let Vic lead you to conclude.

Glenda

 

[vicwestlad]

PeaceInChrist:

Interesting. Why do you feel the need to do this, rather than read and understand actual theologians?

I don’t need to “do this”. Despite your attempts at condescension, I do understand theologians (As far as they make sense that is. Beyond that is, by definition, incomprehensible)

PeaceInChrist:

As to call it superfluous or ask why God needs a body and soul, He doesn’t need either.

What purpose does the body serve then, if it’s not needed?

PeaceInChrist:

God wouldn’t “uncreate” His body and soul, because the body and soul are beautiful and eternal from the point of their creation.

That’s, again, just a reassertion of doctrine, along with an aesthetic opinion. It doesn’t explain anything. I asked specifically about the lungs, heart, and veins. The question is, are they functioning?

I have another question. Does Jesus have a human brain? If so, does he use it?

PeaceInChrist:

His position on something related to geography has little to do with the present topic.

Of course it does. If you trot out Aquinas as perhaps the best example of someone to who can make sense of theological difficulties and I present you with his “explanation” that Hell is in the middle of the Earth, that undermines his ability to make sense of these problems.

And you didn’t answer the question. Do you accept Aquinas’ explanation of the location of Hell as being in the middle of the Earth?

PeaceInChrist:

Perhaps it is time to simply conclude that you do not agree with our reasoning, and leave it at that?

If you prefer, but there are a few questions that you haven’t provided good answers to and, once again, your links didn’t answer them either, as I surmised.

 

[vicwestlad]

glendab:

To all those who have tried to help Vic find his lost faith by argumentation with him: It is very difficult and can even be dangerous to try and save a drowning man who is still flailing. He must simply stop screaming and flailing on his own and then it is safe to swim out to him and rescue him. Otherwise you could risk drowning yourself in the attempt.

I’m flattered by this power you ascribe to me. However, I’m a bit mystified as to why you’re so addicted to this thread.

glendab:

Vic, I sincerely hope you DO share why you left the Church on another thread.

Well you asked. If you want to know, start another thread in the appropriate place and I’ll participate and let you know what precipitated my departure.

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

That certainly works for humans during earthly life. I’m not sure that it applies to the resurrected life, though. Of course, that is one of our central issues.

Ahhh but you’ve avoided the question. I asked you for a definition of human. I gave you a perfectly apt definition and I asked for your definition, if different, so we can compare. You’re the one claiming that Jesus is a human being so let’s have your definition so see if this god qualifies.

Usagi:

Most of the saints are supposed to be disembodied souls right now, after all

Really so how are they communicating with Jesus and each other? Can they see, hear?

Usagi:

But they must eventually have bodies restored in order to be complete human beings.

What can they do with their bodies that they can’t do right now as disembodied spirits in heaven?

Question: Is Heaven a physical realm of a spiritual one?

Usagi:

Generally we don’t talk about God having (or being) a soul; that’s more of a human thing. But God is a pure spirit, which a human soul also is, so that kinda works. Just a difference in terminology.

Interesting. What’s the difference between soul and spirit?

Usagi:

At the Incarnation, God created a completely new human soul and body and sort of “grafted it on,”

So he “grafted” a soul onto his spirit. I’ll wait to see how you differentiate between a soul and a spirit above but I’m not sure the above is even a compressible concept. I’ll reserve judgment for now though and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Usagi:

1. Jesus remains only one person, one “who” that can be interacted with. This is in contrast to the Trinity as a whole, which is three “whos” that can interact with each other.

God the father can’t be interacted with? Not sure I’m clear on what you’re saying here. Can you clarify for me?

Usagi:

1. Jesus however has two distinct natures, two “whats” of what he is – human and divine. They don’t mix or blend together but they are joined inseparably from the Incarnation onward.

Jesus’ divine nature doesn’t mix with his human nature? What could it be that would separate them? Can you explain that, 'cause I’m having trouble with the concept.

Usagi:

1. The union between the two natures is such that things that technically happened to only one of the two can still be said to be true of the whole Person. Thus, Jesus the person was born and suffered and died, even though God has no origin, is impassible, and cannot die.

So divine Jesus did not suffer?

Usagi:

He does not need one in the absolute sense, as though He would stop existing otherwise. He “needs” one in order to be a complete human, now that He has chosen to be that. The not needing and the needing are on two different levels.

But if he is a man because he “chose” to become one, what prevents him from un-choosing it any time he wants?

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

He presumably could, but I wouldn’t imagine that He generally does, no.

Ok, so if, when people pray to Jesus, he doesn’t use his human ears to hear them, what does he use?

Usagi:

The latter, of course.

Ok, so when Jesus manipulates the universe, he does it with only his will and not any physical attribute of his body. It’s seeming more and more that Jesus’ physical body serves little or no purpose. There’s nothing he can do with his body that he can’t do without. I’m even more interested now in your definition of what it means to be human.

This leads to another question: Does Jesus have a human brain? If so, does he use it?

Usagi:

I don’t have nearly as big a problem with this as you seem to.

The current human body is meant to do all those things in an earthly environment.

What a glorified body is meant to do in a Heavenly environment is completely unknown.
Well that’s kind of the point. A human body has a specific purpose which is what I stated above. It processes energy so it can repair body parts and acquire more food and replicate. Beyond that, it’s really hard to see it has any purpose, certainly not in a non physical realm. The fact that you say it’s purpose in a spiritual environment is “completely unknown” may be another way of saying there is no conceivable purpose. I’d be willing to accept that.

Usagi:

I do not feel logically compelled to hold that the current form of the human body is the only thing that could possibly qualify as a “real human body,” given that I already believe in the concept of the “resurrection body.”

What other “form” of a human body would you be imagining? The lungs, heart, veins, etc, have a specific purpose. If you have lungs, they are to breath with. A heart makes blood flow. What could they possibly be needed for if not that? I think we’re hitting on the crux of the matter.

Usagi:

You are combining things that are meant to be kept distinct. Jesus’ divine nature has never been and can never be rendered imperfect, even if the human nature attached to it experiences imperfection. The only point on which I am granting the existence of some imperfection is Jesus’ human body and soul when they were briefly separated.

Aahh, you’re performing another slight of hand in order to skirt the problem. I’m not talking about an imperfection of “Jesus’ body”. I’m talking specifically about the perfection/imperfection of Jesus, period. You said Jesus’ human nature would be imperfect without a human body. If any part of him is imperfect, then he is imperfect. He didn’t have a human body for three days and three nights, but you’re saying that during that time he was perfect because he can’t be otherwise. But you’ve just stated that he can be perfect without his human body because he was for those three days and three nights.

I know you won’t admit to a contradiction but, in my opinion, you have an internal self-contradiction with your theological position as stated. Sorry, don’t mean to be that blunt but this seems to obvious and clear to ignore.

 

[vicwestlad]

glendab:

These things you’ve said are directly against Catholic teaching and understanding.

I was kind of thinking that too.

glendab:

At the Incarnation there was “no grafting” in of anything nor was God Creating Himself.

Yeah, I thought that was a little out there.

glendab:

Usagi, please be more careful about what you let Vic lead you to conclude.

He’s doing a much better job than you did, though. I think he’s done very well with difficult material.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I don’t need to “do this”. Despite your attempts at condescension, I do understand theologians (As far as they make sense that is. Beyond that is, by definition, incomprehensible)

What purpose does the body serve then, if it’s not needed?

That’s, again, just a reassertion of doctrine, along with an aesthetic opinion. It doesn’t explain anything. I asked specifically about the lungs, heart, and veins. The question is, are they functioning?

I have another question. Does Jesus have a human brain? If so, does he use it?

Of course it does. If you trot out Aquinas as perhaps the best example of someone to who can make sense of theological difficulties and I present you with his “explanation” that Hell is in the middle of the Earth, that undermines his ability to make sense of these problems.

And you didn’t answer the question. Do you accept Aquinas’ explanation of the location of Hell as being in the middle of the Earth?

If you prefer, but there are a few questions that you haven’t provided good answers to and, once again, your links didn’t answer them either, as I surmised.

You didn’t respond to several parts of my original post. As to the level that a resurrected and glorified body functions on, I honestly don’t think anyone on earth knows.

The parts of my post that you excluded included answers as to why Jesus still has a human body and soul, and that He is glorified, and that is as much as we know.

By seeking to know minute details about the Glorified Body of Christ, you are seeking knowledge that is beyond human capability and beyond divine revelation. No one has examined the organs of Jesus, or asked Him these questions, and so we have no way of knowing. They have no bearing on, and are not necessary for, our salvation.

I am not attempting to condescend to you. I am genuinely struggling to see any purpose to your inquiry, except to provide an outlet to argue and belittle a faith tradition that you disagree with. Many of your questions are about extremely minute details that have never been discussed or revealed, and are impossible to know. I can’t see any purpose to asking how exactly Jesus’s lungs function, and demanding an answer that satisfies the requirements for a medical examination, except to argue. Seeking simply to argue and incite anger is never healthy, whether you believe in God or not.

As to Aquinas, I do not have to agree with everything he teaches if it is found to be unsound. He was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, as well. But using this in your argument is a fallacy. His correct explanation of the soul, the Incarnation, and the hypostatic union are not affected at all by his incorrect theory of the location of hell. This would be like a theoretical physicist making several theories, and one turns out to be proven and becomes a law. But because his others were incorrect, some of his opponents claim the law is false. So it is with Aquinas and what has been accepted and rejected of his teachings. Please do not bring up Aquinas’s view on the location of hell again. It is fallacious and serves literally no purpose in this discussion.

If you do not address the rest of my previous post, or if you insist on asking about minute details about Christ’s glorified body or why He does things (which I answered and gave an analogy for in my previous post), then I cannot continue dialogue with you because it will have become a meaningless argument (or may have been from the start, though I sincerely hope not).