Where did Jesus body go?

[Byblos]

What are you talking about? That goes against every account of the resurrection in the gospels. One of the most compelling evidences for the resurrection is the abscence of the body from the tomb. If Jesus didn't resurrect in his human body we'd be hard pressed explaining that in resurrection terms. And if he indeed was resurrected in his human body then he was resurrected with the body in its entirety, blood and all. Otherwise blood should have been evident in the tomb in place of the body. The fact that Tomas touched Jesus' wounds where there was no blood doesn't mean his body didn't have any.

As to the question where his body is now, I believe it is in heaven. And yes, this means there is a physical dimention to heaven, one inaccessible to us at this stage. Think about it, if we believe in the physical resurrection of the body (albeit in a different form than we currently have) then there must be a physical reality corresponding to this new body. So why can't Jesus' body already be there now?

So you are saying that His resurrected body was exactly like any other human body?
Because the accounts do not say that at all.
With this resurrected body He could fly ( taken up into the clouds), He could pass through walls ( enter closed rooms).
He never states that He is flesh and blood ( which would be a typical comment on his human form) but states that He is flesh and bones.

I am going by the literal accounts that describe His resurrected state:
John 20: 19-20
Luke 24: 38-39

What I am saying is that the same body he was incarnated into (Jac, you know what I mean) is the same one that was resurrected. It may have undergone a transformation upon the resurrection but it is the same body. Otherwise we have massive problems to overcome with the resurrection. Did that transformation include the evaporation of blood? Maybe, I don't know. My main point is that it is the same body.

In terms of how His body looks in Heaven, we have Revelation 1:12-18

As for no blood, we have Paul's statement in Corinthians 15:35-50

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”... All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts... There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies... So also is the resurrection of the dead... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body... Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. -1 Corinthians 15:35-50


Paul makes it clear that flesh and blood can not inherit Heaven BUT we know form Christ that Flesh and Bone can for His body was such.

That's fine, point conceded, but a minor one nonetheless, considering my emphasis was on two points: 1) it was the same body that was resurrected (albeit with a transformation to prepare him for heaven), and 2) that heaven may indeed be a physical place where Jesus is currently located and where we will eventually joint him.

P.S. That's the main difference between Jesus' resurrection and ours, his was in his actual earthly body transformed; ours will be an entirely new one.

[Jac3510]

Yup, the incarnation is important. If Jesus' body wasn't human at birth, then Jesus wasn't human and isn't our Savior. The same is true about His resurrection body for exactly the same reason.

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure what you mean about "same Body".
It looked the same of course, but it couldn't be human like our because ours is a mortal body and His was no longer mortal.

[RickD]

Paul & Byblos,

From my perspective, reading over the last few posts by you two, you're basically saying the same thing from your own pov.

And Byblos, regarding your second point here:

2) that heaven may indeed be a physical place where Jesus is currently located and where we will eventually joint him.

While I think it's possible that heaven is a physical place, it may just be a spiritual place, but Jesus is an exception with his resurrected body.

Aren't we going to get our resurrected(physical) body, to live eternally in the new heavens and new earth? Perhaps the new heavens and new earth will be a different kind of physical place. A kind with different physical laws that allow it and us to live forever.

[Storyteller]

Not sure what you mean about "same Body".
It looked the same of course, but it couldn't be human like our because ours is a mortal body and His was no longer mortal.

I dont see why it couldnt be like ours. He had a mortal body that died. When he rose from the dead then he became immortal so His body was no longer mortal.

Just re read that, not sure if it makes sense but I know what I mean.

(Sorry about puncuation etc, on kindle so its a tad difficult)

[PaulSacramento]

Paul & Byblos,

From my perspective, reading over the last few posts by you two, you're basically saying the same thing from your own pov.

And Byblos, regarding your second point here:

2) that heaven may indeed be a physical place where Jesus is currently located and where we will eventually joint him.

While I think it's possible that heaven is a physical place, it may just be a spiritual place, but Jesus is an exception with his resurrected body.

Aren't we going to get our resurrected(physical) body, to live eternally in the new heavens and new earth? Perhaps the new heavens and new earth will be a different kind of physical place. A kind with different physical laws that allow it and us to live forever.

I think so too ( that we are basically saying the same thing).
I just wanted to point out that what is stated in the NT in regards to the resurrected body of Christ gives us certain indications that as much as it looks human-like, it is not a human body as we know it because, for one thing, it is immortal and imperishable and human bodies are not.
So, while we can most certainly say that Christ's resurrected body is a MATERIAL one and that it looks human, it also most certainly has non-human or "super-human" qualities.

See this isn't a "I am right, you are wrong thing", it is simply a matter of how we interpret the texts that speak of the resurrected body and what we think it may mean.

[PaulSacramento]

Not sure what you mean about "same Body".
It looked the same of course, but it couldn't be human like our because ours is a mortal body and His was no longer mortal.

I dont see why it couldnt be like ours. He had a mortal body that died. When he rose from the dead then he became immortal so His body was no longer mortal.

Just re read that, not sure if it makes sense but I know what I mean.

(Sorry about puncuation etc, on kindle so its a tad difficult)

If He was no longer mortal than His body would NOT be like ours which IS mortal.

[RickD]

Paul & Byblos,

From my perspective, reading over the last few posts by you two, you're basically saying the same thing from your own pov.

And Byblos, regarding your second point here:

2) that heaven may indeed be a physical place where Jesus is currently located and where we will eventually joint him.

While I think it's possible that heaven is a physical place, it may just be a spiritual place, but Jesus is an exception with his resurrected body.

Aren't we going to get our resurrected(physical) body, to live eternally in the new heavens and new earth? Perhaps the new heavens and new earth will be a different kind of physical place. A kind with different physical laws that allow it and us to live forever.

I think so too ( that we are basically saying the same thing).
I just wanted to point out that what is stated in the NT in regards to the resurrected body of Christ gives us certain indications that as much as it looks human-like, it is not a human body as we know it because, for one thing, it is immortal and imperishable and human bodies are not.
So, while we can most certainly say that Christ's resurrected body is a MATERIAL one and that it looks human, it also most certainly has non-human or "super-human" qualities.

See this isn't a "I am right, you are wrong thing", it is simply a matter of how we interpret the texts that speak of the resurrected body and what we think it may mean.

I agree.
1 Corinthians 15:42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

[Storyteller]

Not sure what you mean about "same Body".
It looked the same of course, but it couldn't be human like our because ours is a mortal body and His was no longer mortal.

I dont see why it couldnt be like ours. He had a mortal body that died. When he rose from the dead then he became immortal so His body was no longer mortal.

Just re read that, not sure if it makes sense but I know what I mean.

(Sorry about puncuation etc, on kindle so its a tad difficult)

If He was no longer mortal than His body would NOT be like ours which IS mortal.

Sorry Paul, crossed wires there.

After ressurection He was/is immortal so His body must be different to ours but so will ours.

[Kurieuo]

Byblos emphasizes a valid point, even if there is essential agreement.

I'm not sure "body" is the best language since "bodies" are really just vessels that allow us to interact.*
Our physical body allows us to act in the physical realm, and spiritual body the spiritual realm.
* before anyone debates this, let me qualify I'm not by any means saying we're simply a ghost in a shell

Better to discuss what Jesus' nature/s are, rather than body.
For Christ to be an adequate mediator between God and humanity, then must necessarily be fully divine and fully human.
So in saying Christ possesses a spiritual body, or physical body... really, such is just appearances. At least this is how I see it.

Better to say Christ possesses divine and human natures that can either be presenting in bodily form of man or spirit. Right?

Something I'd be interested to know (@Byblos, Jac & others) is whether you believe Jesus' divine and human natures eternally existed prior to being born into the world?
OR, did Jesus take on a human nature when He decided to be born into the world? I'm not sure I've developed a view on this.

[Jac3510]

Since I hold to a strong view of immutability, I insist that there has never been and in principle cannot be any change in God of any kind (including in His relations to the world). That's a huge statement that is a matter of debate all on its own. I only say it here to explain my own view that, in the Incarnation, God did not change. The human being Jesus of Nazareth did. He came into existence at that point. That is NOT to say that the Second Person of the Godhead changed. When we say that He took on a human nature, we are using human language in an anthropomorphic way. The Divine Nature is and has "always been" and will "always be" exactly what it Is. So that means that Jesus' human nature did not exist prior to His being born into the world. It came into existence when the human person named Jesus came into existence.

Back to the point Byblos was making, I think Paul and Byblos probably are making similar points, but the technical language can be important because if we get it wrong we can get really wrong ideas. If we suggest that Jesus' body is not human, then we are saying that Jesus is no longer human. Certainly Jesus' body is different from ours, but my body is different from my kids', too. So we can say that Jesus' body is a glorified human body, that ours is not. But both are still human. There are more technical questions here in terms of if this means that the properties of Jesus' glorified body are "natural" (in the sense that they are part and parcel of what it means to be human and only actualized in certain instances) or if they are "supernatural" (in the sense that those properties have been superadded to the human nature by divine grace). But I wouldn't want those sorts of questions to distract from what I see to be the man point, which is what you basically just said K and what Byblos was getting at before: Jesus has a fully human nature. Therefore, Jesus' body is fully human. To say that Jesus' body is not fully human is to deny His full humanity, and that is what we have to guard against.

[Kurieuo]

Since I hold to a strong view of immutability, I insist that there has never been and in principle cannot be any change in God of any kind (including in His relations to the world). That's a huge statement that is a matter of debate all on its own. I only say it here to explain my own view that, in the Incarnation, God did not change. The human being Jesus of Nazareth did. He came into existence at that point. That is NOT to say that the Second Person of the Godhead changed. When we say that He took on a human nature, we are using human language in an anthropomorphic way. The Divine Nature is and has "always been" and will "always be" exactly what it Is. So that means that Jesus' human nature did not exist prior to His being born into the world. It came into existence when the human person named Jesus came into existence.

I did not expect you to believe that Christ took upon Himself human nature (precisely because I know you believe in God's strong immutability).
That too, is what I was leaning towards.

It actually also kind of makes sense now I think of it.
For human natures are not eternal like a divine nature.
Therefore, in order for Christ to possess a true human nature then such must be finite.

How you resolve that out with your strong immutability, I'm not even going to probe.

[abelcainsbrother]

Man was created in God's image so I can see Jesus being human,he was certainly human when he was born into this world.God humbled himself and was born into this world just as we are human.But now that he's in heaven at the right hand of God he has a glorified body and yet it still bears his scars.I don't think our glorified bodies will bear scars though perhaps it will always be a reminder to us for what Jesus did for us even in heaven.

[Storyteller]

Since I hold to a strong view of immutability, I insist that there has never been and in principle cannot be any change in God of any kind (including in His relations to the world). That's a huge statement that is a matter of debate all on its own. I only say it here to explain my own view that, in the Incarnation, God did not change. The human being Jesus of Nazareth did. He came into existence at that point. That is NOT to say that the Second Person of the Godhead changed. When we say that He took on a human nature, we are using human language in an anthropomorphic way. The Divine Nature is and has "always been" and will "always be" exactly what it Is. So that means that Jesus' human nature did not exist prior to His being born into the world. It came into existence when the human person named Jesus came into existence.

Back to the point Byblos was making, I think Paul and Byblos probably are making similar points, but the technical language can be important because if we get it wrong we can get really wrong ideas. If we suggest that Jesus' body is not human, then we are saying that Jesus is no longer human. Certainly Jesus' body is different from ours, but my body is different from my kids', too. So we can say that Jesus' body is a glorified human body, that ours is not. But both are still human. There are more technical questions here in terms of if this means that the properties of Jesus' glorified body are "natural" (in the sense that they are part and parcel of what it means to be human and only actualized in certain instances) or if they are "supernatural" (in the sense that those properties have been superadded to the human nature by divine grace). But I wouldn't want those sorts of questions to distract from what I see to be the man point, which is what you basically just said K and what Byblos was getting at before: Jesus has a fully human nature. Therefore, Jesus' body is fully human. To say that Jesus' body is not fully human is to deny His full humanity, and that is what we have to guard against.

Forgive me here Jac, I am just trying to understand this. Are you saying that Jesus was fully human but perhaps His spirit is what makes Him different. I have never had a problem with Jesus being both fully human and fully God but I have never really stopped to think exactly what that actually means.
He must have been fully human, surely, to enable Him to take on all of our sins but also fully God to take on all our sins.
If Jesus was fully God then He must have always existed but maybe the body of Jesus didn`t, that kind of thing?

I`m not always very good at explaining what I mean, so please bear with me as I tend to think things through as I type.

ACB makes an interesting point that maybe Jesus bears the scars to remind us of what He did for us but I`m not sure that sits well with me. Isn`t Heaven meant to be perfect? Or is that just my interpretation? And why would we need to be reminded? Surely we will need no reminder as we all be in our perfect form? Is there imperfection in Heaven?

Sorry, I`m straying off topic...

I believe that Jesus`s physical body ascended to Heaven, I`m just not sure how it all fits in. There is a part of me that thinks that His form may appear to each of us differently as we all have different ideas of what God looks like, or might look like, if we indeed even see Him how we think we will.

It`s a very difficult to get my head around al of this!

[PaulSacramento]

So we can say that Jesus' body is a glorified human body, that ours is not. But both are still human.

Yes, that is exactly it.
Thanks Jac.