What is your concept of Jesus as a fully human male?

[BarbaraTherese]

St. John in his Gospel tells us that not all Jesus said and did is not recorded (anyone who has John’s actual words and the reference, please post it - just at this time I don’t have time to go on a hunt…)…………hence I regard my own concept of Jesus as perhaps limited and certainly relative and conditional to t he Real Human Male Jesus, now in Heaven……….yet with us still………………in fact he lives in every human being in the state of Grace.

I see Jesus as a very intelligent young man. He is sensitive and capable of great gentleness and compassion, nor does he keep this aspect of his person hidden…………. I also see him as a very outspoken young man and more or less following in the footsteps of his cousin John, whom Jesus realizes has been executed (murdered) for his outspokenness………and in fact in The Temple in Jerusalem shortly before his death, he looses the plot completely and his cool and becomes violent. Every human being is capable of violence and usually is ……….on some level or other and to some degree or other and often a side of our humanity, a real and active side, we deny……………and very much a survival necessity and element similar to fear………….

Regards, Barb
Bethany South Australia
Wednesday, 11th. May 2005 10.10 am

 

[BarbaraTherese]

…I also see Jesus as having a sense of humour. The image I have of Jesus with Nicodemas who climbs the tree to be able to see Jesus…and Jesus tells him to get down because he would like to have lunch (let’s say) with him…I see anyway as an image of Jesus with a sense of humour…perhaps others can
think of more instances…these images of an aspect of Jesus’ personality usually come through meditating on the Gospels…

I have other reasons for feeling Jesus had a sense of humour and I may post them later if this thread continues…absent from desk more or less for three or four days, perhaps longer…

Catcha kids (kids is an expression for friends, comrades etc. here in Aussie Land)

Regards, Barb
Bethany South Australia
Wednesday 11th. May, 2005 - 10.38am
Final Day Octave of Ascension

 

[trailblazer]

Hello Barb,

I thought you were away for awhile, glad I was mistaken! I voted for the middle one. Jesus was a deep man of prayer as demonstrated by him praying before major decisions, going off to pray for lengthy periods to spend quality time with Abba, and his disciples asking him to teach them to pray. He was a man of great intelligence and wisdom as demonstrated by his questions and answers as a child of 12, the amazement of crowds who heard him, and the masterful parables he developed and taught through. He was a man of deep compassion as demonstrated by his healing and touching lepers and others, his kindness to the women caught in adultry, and his forgiveness of those who crucified him. I cannot imagine him not having an award winning smile and a good sense of humor that attracted people. And, he was a man of conviction and action. He said things as he saw them and upset many. In his love for the marginalized and effort to proclaim by word and deed the Kingdom, he scandalized many, but that did not dissuade him. He turned the world and worldview of his counterparts upside down…this eventually led to his crucifixion.

Love & peace in Christ,
Bob

 

[Nan_S]

Even Jesus had to have his mama wipe his butt when he was a baby.

 

[springbreeze]

To have actually met the man Jesus would have been beyond words. The perfect human being.

To me Jesus the man is full of the Holy Spirit, it’s gifts and it’s fruits as is His Mother Mary (the Lord is with you).

He is perfectly wise, possessing all wisdom in all actions and speech, He has perfect understanding of God and of humanity, He is perfect counsel fully able to advise and help others. He is prefectly strong to strive forward to uphold and teach the truth, to do what is right and to condemn what is wrong, He is perfectly incapable of sin.He knows God the Father and the Holy Spirit and humanities true destiny to live in union with God in this life and in the next. Jesus is the only One through Whom true praise and worship may be given to God, His humanity perfect in all things that it is in, by and through Him that we are able to worship our Truine God in ‘the Perfect Offering’ of Christ Jesus. It is through Jesus we know the fullness of truth and can know how not to offend God, to fear offending God.

To me Jesus the man is loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, generous, gentle, faithful, modest, self-controlled, chaste and pure. The perfection of humanity.

I also believe Jesus to be reflective, contemplative, quiet, outspoken, gregarious, good company, seeking solitude, retiring, prayerful, solemn, humourous, playful, animated, purposeful, driven, angered, outraged, just, sorrowful, annoyed, courageous, brave, saddened, depressed, tired, energised, happy, frustrated, dejected, elated, inspiring, exhausted, observant, intelligent, preceptive, mild, compassionate, confident…the list goes on.

He felt the cold, the heat , the wind, the rain, the storm, hunger, tiredness, He cried and He laughed.

He loved the world and all it’s beauty, the sheep, the flowers, the grass, the ear of corn, the weather, people, the sparrow, mountains, the sea etc even the tiny mustard seed using all these aspects of creation in His parables. He looked upon them with His human eyes and considered them all in His heart and loves them.

He experienced every human quality and emotion perfectly as it should be, as God intended humanity to be.

To think this perfect human being comes and graces my soul with His Presence, let alone His Divinity is a gift so humbling I cannot begin to thank God enough and through Him, the Father and the Holy Spirit grace my soul by their Presence.

To be Christ-like, to be as the humanity of Christ is to be fully human ourselves.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[quintin_gomes]

BarbaraTherese:

…I also see Jesus as having a sense of humour. The image I have of Jesus with Nicodemas who climbs the tree to be able to see Jesus…and Jesus tells him to get down because he would like to have lunch (let’s say) with him…I see anyway as an image of Jesus with a sense of humour…perhaps others can
think of more instances…these images of an aspect of Jesus’ personality usually come through meditating on the Gospels…

I have other reasons for feeling Jesus had a sense of humour and I may post them later if this thread continues…absent from desk more or less for three or four days, perhaps longer…

Catcha kids (kids is an expression for friends, comrades etc. here in Aussie Land)

Regards, Barb
Bethany South Australia
Wednesday 11th. May, 2005 - 10.38am
Final Day Octave of Ascension

 

[quintin_gomes]

I am very sorry my last answer to this was My concept of Humility since I was on that topic a few minutes earlier.

My Concept to this question viz.
What is your concept of Jesus as a fully grown man?

We all know as Catholics that Jesus whilst on earth had Human Nature as well as a Divine Nature, and that he was capable of switching over to his Divine nature at Will, which is clearly mentioned more than once in the New Testament, almost most of the time he was exactly the same as we are that is with the same feelings thoughts, sufferings, pain, temptaions etc… but he certainly was not capable of falling into sin, that is where he was different.

 

[4_marks]

How about this: The “Jesus” we meet in scripture never existed as a particular person, but was composed as a composite of certain sages that really did exist. This “Jesus” was deliberately portrayed as the Messianic hope of Israel.

Apparently, some of the followers of an itenerant Rabbi had believed he was to be the Messiah of Israel and followed after him. When he was executed for the threat that his proclamations posed to the religious and political establishment and his body was thrown in a pile of corpses, his followers, remembering some of his philologistic admonitions, committed themselves to further embellishing his story.

They took his most noble sentiments, added to them the best of the teaching of others like him, and developed the Christ of “Resurrection Faith.” This Christ represented the deepest longings of the human heart at the time with regard to the devotion to an overarching monotheistic deity, a practice peculiar to the Jewish people.

Does this mean that Christianity and Catholicism are based upon lies and falsehood? No. A developmental belief in something greater than ourselves and the material universe in which we discover ourselves, and a profound hope in an actual purpose for our existence is a common thread in human history. How this is articulated varies from culture to culture, and even within each culture.

Since human beings are by nature, social animals, a communal and structurally organized sense of worship replete with symbolic elements which point to deeply cherished aspirations and values is essential. It so happened that as western human culture has evolved in stages, and particular elements obtained from other religious practices have been syncretized and synthesized into our own, the practice of the faith has had staying power.

I, for one, do not practice the faith out of some sense of duty and obligation to the Church as an entity within itself, but because I am human…born within a domesticated western culture to parents, who, despite their faults and failings, pointed me to her in continuation of an evolutionary chain of human spiritual development. In time, I, too, have come to embrace and to identify with this rich heritage.

As humanity progresses, there will, no doubt, be further transformations in human religious expression, the culmination of which remains yet to be seen. We often identify this culmination as “the Second Coming of Christ” or the “Beatific Vision.”

Whatever it is, one can be assured that the final outcome will be worth the struggles of many to preserve it and to faithfully pass it on.

 

[slinky1882]

My answer would be all of the middle answer and more. As both true God and true man, Jesus Christ became flesh and dwelt among us that we might have Eternal Life. As a human, He was the perfect example of living the Father’s Will and uniting and redeeming mankind. I am sure he sought solitude and prayers and had favorite foods and flowers and colors… and that He truly suffered. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[slinky1882]

4 marks:

How about this: The “Jesus” we meet in scripture never existed as a particular person, but was composed as a composite of certain sages that really did exist. This “Jesus” was deliberately portrayed as the Messianic hope of Israel.

Apparently, some of the followers of an itenerant Rabbi had believed he was to be the Messiah of Israel and followed after him. When he was executed for the threat that his proclamations posed to the religious and political establishment and his body was thrown in a pile of corpses, his followers, remembering some of his philologistic admonitions, committed themselves to further embellishing his story.

They took his most noble sentiments, added to them the best of the teaching of others like him, and developed the Christ of “Resurrection Faith.” This Christ represented the deepest longings of the human heart at the time with regard to the devotion to an overarching monotheistic deity, a practice peculiar to the Jewish people.

Does this mean that Christianity and Catholicism are based upon lies and falsehood? No. A developmental belief in something greater than ourselves and the material universe in which we discover ourselves, and a profound hope in an actual purpose for our existence is a common thread in human history. How this is articulated varies from culture to culture, and even within each culture.

Since human beings are by nature, social animals, a communal and structurally organized sense of worship replete with symbolic elements which point to deeply cherished aspirations and values is essential. It so happened that as western human culture has evolved in stages, and particular elements obtained from other religious practices have been syncretized and synthesized into our own, the practice of the faith has had staying power.

I, for one, do not practice the faith out of some sense of duty and obligation to the Church as an entity within itself, but because I am human…born within a domesticated western culture to parents, who, despite their faults and failings, pointed me to her in continuation of an evolutionary chain of human spiritual development. In time, I, too, have come to embrace and to identify with this rich heritage.

As humanity progresses, there will, no doubt, be further transformations in human religious expression, the culmination of which remains yet to be seen. We often identify this culmination as “the Second Coming of Christ” or the “Beatific Vision.”

Whatever it is, one can be assured that the final outcome will be worth the struggles of many to preserve it and to faithfully pass it on.

I am not quite sure if the composite idea is your view on Jesus being a human male or as a possibility. Yet the question would remain to those who would swear to “seeing” Jesus Christ under pain of blasphemy and death, the reply would be??? . Thanks and God Bless.

 

[springbreeze]

4 marks:

How about this: The “Jesus” we meet in scripture never existed as a particular person, but was composed as a composite of certain sages that really did exist. This “Jesus” was deliberately portrayed as the Messianic hope of Israel.

Apparently, some of the followers of an itenerant Rabbi had believed he was to be the Messiah of Israel and followed after him. When he was executed for the threat that his proclamations posed to the religious and political establishment and his body was thrown in a pile of corpses, his followers, remembering some of his philologistic admonitions, committed themselves to further embellishing his story.

They took his most noble sentiments, added to them the best of the teaching of others like him, and developed the Christ of “Resurrection Faith.” This Christ represented the deepest longings of the human heart at the time with regard to the devotion to an overarching monotheistic deity, a practice peculiar to the Jewish people.

Does this mean that Christianity and Catholicism are based upon lies and falsehood? No. A developmental belief in something greater than ourselves and the material universe in which we discover ourselves, and a profound hope in an actual purpose for our existence is a common thread in human history. How this is articulated varies from culture to culture, and even within each culture.

Since human beings are by nature, social animals, a communal and structurally organized sense of worship replete with symbolic elements which point to deeply cherished aspirations and values is essential. It so happened that as western human culture has evolved in stages, and particular elements obtained from other religious practices have been syncretized and synthesized into our own, the practice of the faith has had staying power.

I, for one, do not practice the faith out of some sense of duty and obligation to the Church as an entity within itself, but because I am human…born within a domesticated western culture to parents, who, despite their faults and failings, pointed me to her in continuation of an evolutionary chain of human spiritual development. In time, I, too, have come to embrace and to identify with this rich heritage.

As humanity progresses, there will, no doubt, be further transformations in human religious expression, the culmination of which remains yet to be seen. We often identify this culmination as “the Second Coming of Christ” or the “Beatific Vision.”

Whatever it is, one can be assured that the final outcome will be worth the struggles of many to preserve it and to faithfully pass it on.

Did they then crucify this as you describe a ‘creation of man’ and did this ‘creation of man’ rise from the dead?

What are you talking about friend? You either believe God became Incarnate or you do not.

Do you believe? I cannot make out from your post if you are presenting erronous teaching you believe in or do not believe in.

Either way what you have posted is a lie. You are free to believe what you like, you are free to ponitifcate on revealed truths and twist them, you are free friend to call our faith a fabrication that is good for humanity.

I call it the Truth as there is an infinite truth and everything has it’s origin in that truth and everything will return back to that truth. You either accept the truth or you manipulate it as you have done.

Jesus is God Incarnate and you can reject that with your hypothesis , but it will not change the truth that He is God and it is as it was and ever shall be.

Without the Ressurrection and life after death there is no point to Christianity, infact there is no point to life at all if there is no afterlife. You say you practice Catholicism yet by what you have written here you deny the core teachings of the faith which is revealed truths.

Whilst I respect your freedom to believe what you like, please take your views and post them somewhere else, I, for one do not appreciate your slur on Christ nor on His people, the Catholic Church.

If you are Catholic you need to receive some teaching on Catholicism and you also need to read Sacred Scripture and the Early Fathers.

Please do not propogate lies here! Your writing here has denied the infinite capabilities of God and denied the faith that millions have in God. You have infact insulted the faith of millions of Christians, by attempting to reduce Christ Jesus to an imaginary figure. I am appalled by your ideals and your post. I find it hard to imagine you are Christian at all.

God Bless
Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

springbreeze:

Did they then crucify this as you describe a ‘creation of man’ and did this ‘creation of man’ rise from the dead?

What are you talking about friend? You either believe God became Incarnate or you do not.

Do you believe? I cannot make out from your post if you are presenting erronous teaching you believe in or do not believe in.

Either way what you have posted is a lie. You are free to believe what you like, you are free to ponitifcate on revealed truths and twist them, you are free friend to call our faith a fabrication that is good for humanity.

I call it the Truth as there is an infinite truth and everything has it’s origin in that truth and everything will return back to that truth. You either accept the truth or you manipulate it as you have done.

Jesus is God Incarnate and you can reject that with your hypothesis , but it will not change the truth that He is God and it is as it was and ever shall be.

Without the Ressurrection and life after death there is no point to Christianity, infact there is no point to life at all if there is no afterlife. You say you practice Catholicism yet by what you have written here you deny the core teachings of the faith which is revealed truths.

Whilst I respect your freedom to believe what you like, please take your views and post them somewhere else, I, for one do not appreciate your slur on Christ nor on His people, the Catholic Church.

If you are Catholic you need to receive some teaching on Catholicism and you also need to read Sacred Scripture and the Early Fathers. If you cannot consider Christ Jesus as fully man without it shuddering your faith in the fact He is also fully God then you have serious holes in your faith and you need to see a Priest to assist you in your understanding of the faith.

Please do not propogate lies here! Your writing here has denied the infinite capabilities of God and denied the faith that millions have in God. You have infact insulted the faith of millions of Christians, by attempting to reduce Christ Jesus to an imaginary figure. I am appalled by your ideals and your post. I find it hard to imagine you are Christian at all.

God Bless
Teresa

 

[4_marks]

springbreeze:

Did they then crucify this as you describe a ‘creation of man’ and did this ‘creation of man’ rise from the dead?

What are you talking about friend? You either believe God became Incarnate or you do not.

Do you believe? I cannot make out from your post if you are presenting erronous teaching you believe in or do not believe in.

Either way what you have posted is a lie. You are free to believe what you like, you are free to ponitifcate on revealed truths and twist them, you are free friend to call our faith a fabrication that is good for humanity.

I call it the Truth as there is an infinite truth and everything has it’s origin in that truth and everything will return back to that truth. You either accept the truth or you manipulate it as you have done.

Jesus is God Incarnate and you can reject that with your hypothesis , but it will not change the truth that He is God and it is as it was and ever shall be.

Without the Ressurrection and life after death there is no point to Christianity, infact there is no point to life at all if there is no afterlife. You say you practice Catholicism yet by what you have written here you deny the core teachings of the faith which is revealed truths.

Whilst I respect your freedom to believe what you like, please take your views and post them somewhere else, I, for one do not appreciate your slur on Christ nor on His people, the Catholic Church.

If you are Catholic you need to receive some teaching on Catholicism and you also need to read Sacred Scripture and the Early Fathers.

Please do not propogate lies here! Your writing here has denied the infinite capabilities of God and denied the faith that millions have in God. You have infact insulted the faith of millions of Christians, by attempting to reduce Christ Jesus to an imaginary figure. I am appalled by your ideals and your post. I find it hard to imagine you are Christian at all.

God Bless
Teresa

How do you understand “God?” The scriptures say the following:

God is “spirit (Jn. 4:24),” God has “horns coming out of his hand (Hab. 3: 3-4),” A “spirit” has not “flesh and bones.” (Lk. 24:39)

According to the biblical Jesus, this is our promised “reward”:

‘We are useless servants; we have only done our duty.’ Luke 17:10

Is what I believe compatible with Catholic teaching?:

“The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love”

-Father John Domenic Crossan, Catholic priest and biblical scholar (note: Benedict XVI has not “excommunicated” him).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Isn’t Dr. Dominic Crossan a *former *priest (you know, as in left the fold. . . ), and now one of the leading proponents of The Jesus Seminar?

At least, that’s what I thought. Can someone set me straight on that?

Thanks.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A tad disingenuous, 4 marks, to call him FATHER Crossan. . .

In the fall of 1968 I decided to resign from the priesthood for two reasons. I wanted to marry Margaret Dagenais, who was then in the process of founding the Fine Arts Department at Loyola University in Chicago. And I wanted to be free from the irritation of thinking critically, as I had been trained, but being in constant trouble for doing so. I wanted to move from seminary to university teaching. In the late summer of 1969 I married Margaret and began teaching at DePaul University that fall. Not every Catholic university was willing to accept ex-priests into their departments of theology in 1969. It is a tribute to DePaul’s integrity that it was willing to judge me in terms of academic competency rather than dogmatic orthodoxy. There I remain, out of gratitude and loyalty, but more out of profound respect for that integrity.

Why would there be any need for Benedict to “excommunicate” him? First, he left the priesthood what, 37 years ago, under Paul VI’s watch, at a time when sadly quite a few priests left. No doubt they have incurred penalties to a varying degree, but we aren’t canon lawyers and we weren’t privy to what their bishops (who basically are the authority figures in deciding what to do with priests who leave, right) said, or what Rome may have decided in a particular case (Rome tends to be very forgiving and lets people have years, decades, to “come to their senses” since Rome doesn’t MICROMANAGE dioceses and since Rome has had an awful lot to do shepherding 1 billion Catholics in the last 37 years).

And Benedict has been pope for less than a month. Do you really think he has NOTHING BETTER TO DO in that time than examine and excommunicate (if it hasn’t already been done, and I’m not sure you even understand what excommunication IS) a man who left the priesthood 37 years ago?

If your marks are “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”, I wonder at your theology which is, frankly, NONE of the above.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks Tantum Ergo, I thought that he had resigned a long time ago. The quote from him above seem like Jesus Seminar talking points.

 

[ames61]

What a lovely thread to have hijacked with blasphemy. Oy.

But back to Barbara’s original thread. Once in meditating on the mystery of the Wedding at Cana for the intentions of my children, I could see Jesus in a field outside the wedding area with children of all ages hanging on Him. The children sensed His goodness, kindness, authenticity in the same way children often do today. When Mary came to Him to tell Him they were out of wine, it seemed His response, “My time is not yet come” was one of almost wistfullness, knowing that His life on earth would never be this simple again, once He peformed that miracle.

Many of the posts above brought me to tears, they are so similar to my own thoughts about Him. Thank you all for sharing.

 

[4_marks]

Tantum ergo:

A tad disingenuous, 4 marks, to call him FATHER Crossan. . .

Why would there be any need for Benedict to “excommunicate” him? First, he left the priesthood what, 37 years ago, under Paul VI’s watch, at a time when sadly quite a few priests left. No doubt they have incurred penalties to a varying degree, but we aren’t canon lawyers and we weren’t privy to what their bishops (who basically are the authority figures in deciding what to do with priests who leave, right) said, or what Rome may have decided in a particular case (Rome tends to be very forgiving and lets people have years, decades, to “come to their senses” since Rome doesn’t MICROMANAGE dioceses and since Rome has had an awful lot to do shepherding 1 billion Catholics in the last 37 years).

And Benedict has been pope for less than a month. Do you really think he has NOTHING BETTER TO DO in that time than examine and excommunicate (if it hasn’t already been done, and I’m not sure you even understand what excommunication IS) a man who left the priesthood 37 years ago?

If your marks are “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”, I wonder at your theology which is, frankly, NONE of the above.

Question (and one all fair minded Catholics must, by necessity, also ask of Benedict XVI): Who “died” and made you, pope?

Ratzinger does not condemn laxness in Catholics…

“I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation.”
Source:Zenit News interview, Oct. 1, 2001

Ratzinger denies the Resurrection of the Body…

“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277

 

[didymus]

quintin gomes:

I am very sorry my last answer to this was My concept of Humility since I was on that topic a few minutes earlier.

My Concept to this question viz.
What is your concept of Jesus as a fully grown man?

We all know as Catholics that Jesus whilst on earth had Human Nature as well as a Divine Nature, and that he was capable of switching over to his Divine nature at Will, which is clearly mentioned more than once in the New Testament, almost most of the time he was exactly the same as we are that is with the same feelings thoughts, sufferings, pain, temptaions etc… but he certainly was not capable of falling into sin, that is where he was different.

Here’s one that’s bound to get me in trouble: did Jesus know he was God as well as man? I’ve always assumed he wan’t aware of it (before the Resurrection). He obviously did not use his Divinity to avoid human suffering or omniscience to know the future.
OTOH, I suspect I’m skating close to somew heresy or other.

As far as my concept of Him I checked all of the above: he certainly had a sense of humor – maybe that’s why he chose Peter to be the leader
I think he was often frustrated, especially with the Apostles, I can picture Him almost ready to :banghead: at how often they failed to understand His message.

 

[springbreeze]

4 marks:

Question (and one all fair minded Catholics must, by necessity, also ask of Benedict XVI): Who “died” and made you, pope?

Ratzinger does not condemn laxness in Catholics…

“I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas Mass, or go on the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation.”
Source:Zenit News interview, Oct. 1, 2001

This quote cannot be used to condone heresy in the Church. This quote shows that people have differing depth of faith in God and faithfulness to the Mass, but that does not mean they do not accept all that the Church teaches even though their attendance may be minimal.

Ratzinger denies the Resurrection of the Body…

“Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons…”
Source: Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, (republished in 1990 with Ratzinger’s approval), p. 277

Yes St Paul does teach this, he says nothing of flesh will enter the Kingdom of heaven and yes this is true. But there is the mystical element of the Body Of Christ and the human spirit united with this, the ‘person’ in unison with the persons of the Truine God. How this ‘body’ will be no-one knows but God. At the final Judgement the new earth and the new heaven will be made and at this point the physical body of the human creature will be considered by God. I do not know what that ‘body’ will be and neither do you, nor does our Pope Benedict XVI.

Post your lies some other place, you have hijacked this thread and you are ruining it.