The Risen Christ - Resurrection to Ascension - His ever-changing Body.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Recently I tried to express my beliefs of what happened to the body of Christ after his death. I did run into some opposition to my beliefs as to what did occur and now as a result I have come upon the writings of Fr Oscar Lukefahr, C.M. , in his latest issue of A Catholic Guide To The Bible.In it I found the following from his writings; Ch 10 pg 147:" So the fact of the Resurrection, on the testamony of the apostles, is certain. How it happened is beyond the reach of history and science. In some way the mortal body of Jesus was transformed into a glorified body. The Jesus of history became Christ who transcends space and time.
Christ appeard to his followers after the Resurrection. As Lord and God, Christ had the power to come back in a waythat allowed him to be seen, heard, and touched. But he did not return in his mortal body. It was his body, now immortal. If an enemy had been able to see him after the Resurrection and had tried to thrust a sword into Christ, he would not have done Christ no harm.
But the glorified body of the risen Christ is not less real than our physical bodie, which will one day return to dust. Christ glorified body is real and perfected, for it cannot be destroyed. The life Christ now leads is the most real life imaginable. As a human being, the risen Christ is united to Lifeitself, the life of God.
The apostles somehow realized this, even in the first extraordinary days after the Resurrection. They realized also that the risen Christ wanted to share God's Life with themand with all people. This was Good News beyond anything they had imagined, and Christ had asked them to bring it to the world."
I wanted to share this find with all of you so we can all believe in the same Christ risen. This helped me to understand a lot more of him.
Blessings.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002
Up -Up
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
Up--Up--
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
Dear Fred:
I believe you're confused. The Risen Lord is in a glorified state, but His body is the very same body that was crucified and died a true death.He showed Thomas the holes in His hands and feet, and Thomas touched the lesion in His side where the lance had penetrated. The same body lives forever glorified. Not TRANSFORMED. It does not become another, better or immortal body. Nor was it REPLACED by one.
If you see the outer sign of His glorification, it's only revealed; not explained. Our mind and our science can't even know what matter really is. Science so far has had to accept that solid matter isn't even solid. Atoms are all comprised of electrons; and an electron has no solid existence as we know it. It's a charge of electricity. The charge is active. But why or how it takes a ''form'' around a nucleus, they can't say. My own grasp of physics is very superficial, so I won't proceed from there.
The word ''glorified'' is an attempt at understanding what can't be seen. Faith is what makes evident to me and you what is not visible.
Going to heaven in a cloud; being immortal, physical miracles-- all these are mysteries. But Our Lord has one, only --Man's Body. How it's glorified, how He gives it to us; the Sacrament of the last supper, in the Eucharist-- is all a mystery. Because matter itself is a mystery. And He alone is the Lord over spirit AND matter; heaven and earth.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.
GeneDID you read Fr Lukefahr's commentary above that I posted? It is quite clear.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
In a cloud or is it ON a cloud.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
Christ offered to Thomas to touch him and in no way does it say HE actually did that. He merely said "My Lord and God." Nothing else.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
I want you to meditate on something. NOT answer it-- meditate on it a day or two.Do we receive in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus as it was before-- or after His death and resurrecion?
The glorified body of Jesus could enter a locked room. It also ate and drank. It could vanish; but it will never suffer death again. Thomas very surely did put his hand into the side of Jesus, and then believed it was His crucified body come back from death.
I don't understand why you doubt it's the very same physical body. It's clearly written.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.
Fred - As pointed out you maybe confused on this issue. We are not meant to ask how many angels are able to dance on the head of a pin.
-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 14, 2002.
JeanI am not confused at all. It is quite simple to understand. The key is this: No more harm can be done to Christ for he is risen from the dead. That is the key. Even the sword of his enemy could harm him as he stood in his risen glorified body. It is his power which he has to present himself at will. NOT ours.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
Dear Fred:
Your words The key is this: No more harm can be done to Christ for he is risen from the dead. That is the key. Even the sword of his enemy could harm him as he stood in his risen glorified body.Mean that the same body which died on the cross, dies no more. He is risen. He is in glory. Nothing about that indicates the same body that underwent death is ''changed'' for a different one. The body of Christ is renewed in Life (Arisen) and dies no more.
Nobody said that Jesus' body could be harmed by a sword or any other harm. He is in a glorious, risen state; living in the same body He suffered in.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.
I think what you are dealing with here is one that I've thought on quite a bit, and that is of something called passability... of attributes and abilities that the body may have had in the perfect state before the fall.The ability to pass through a wall and yet, say, pick up a cup shows that the body seemed in some way super-obedient to the dictates of the will... something we don't have much control over now, or at least have a very difficult time with. The body is sometimes in mutiny with the soul, as when Christ says that the spirit is willing but the flesh weak, and the age old struggle with 'the flesh'.
I think we have all had dreams where we could fly by simply willing it to be so, and that we would fall if we doubted. It is my opinion that something similiar happened to Saint Peter when he walked upon the water. I think in our minds are left the remnants of what we were once capable of.
I often liken the current state of fallen human potential to be like one of those demo programs that you download from the internet, where in the taskbar a lot of the options are greyed out and not available, and that the resurrected body and soul are like the fully functional program.
I also believe that it is the mercy of God that does not allow us the continued full potential of our human capabilities after the fall in order to hold out the option for us the 'seek first the Kingdom of God' and have everything else added later. An indication of this is the Tower of Babel modus operandi of the people of this age, and other ages, who are seeking 'eternal life', or at least 'indefinite life' through studies in biometrics and in other fields, and by eliminating obstacles to their perceived success by aborting their youth, by separating pleasure from responsibility by birth control and enslaving others in various ways so as to avoid the 'sweat of your brow' work ethic imposed as a healing punishment by God in the Garden.
I believe that people either seek to regain their orginal condition either the right way via service to the Creator or the other way which would be the glorification of man and his ongoing collective success and achievements.
I also wanted to point out that, it occured to me one day, that ALL death is caused by lack of passability; that is, that unlike the glorified state where a solid object seems only to come into contact with another if the soul wishes it so, the fallen body has no option in this matter... so that all death such as by car accidents, falling, choking, drowning, clogged arteries, ect. can be traced back to the inability of matter to occupy the same place at the same instant.
Can anyone give me an example of a death where this is not the case? If not, then I think all death could be explained by lack of impassibility.
If thats the case, then it would shed much light on Genisis because it would make much clearer how sin results in certain death and mortality.
Also, it would make much more sense that they suddenly realized they were naked, as gross matter might be in some way more observable than any sort of subtler bodies they may have had.
Just speculating here.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 14, 2002.
Oh yeah, I wrote all that and forgot my original point... someone quoted this:"But he did not return in his mortal body. It was his body, now immortal."
I don't think Christ had a mortal body, because he never sinned and therefore would not 'surely die'. If he were mortal, you pretty much have to say that he sinned.
Notice that his death was caused by being attacked. I think in keeping with will of his Father, he sort of allowed His death to take place. Sort of.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 14, 2002.
Hi Emerald,Your last comment seems to approach Gnosticism.
As I understand, Christ bore physical frailties as any of us would. While being perfect, He still suffered as one of us during the passion. This real suffering in no way denies His perfection.
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 14, 2002.
You're right, Mateo. Emerald has hit on a puzzling fact; That Jesus in fact went to His death willingly!''I don't think Christ had a mortal body, because he never sinned and therefore would not 'surely die.' '' --Come to think about it, Our Lord said to the Pharisees: ''For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, (True Man--) that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up again. (True God.)''
This is in John 10, :17-- Jesus was truly immortal, but chose death for the sake of all mankind. --After rising He is immortal and never dies again. He doesn't have to lay down His life now. ''It is finished --'' His death is no more! (John 19, :30)
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.
JmjHello, Fred.
Thank you for posting that long quotation from a work by Fr. Oscar Lukefahr. I appreciated all that he said, and I find it in agreement with the Catechism, which tells us that Jesus rose and ascended in his glorified human body.In passing, though, Fr. Lukefahr used a phrase that was not quite accurate. It is a phrase that I have heard many priests, even a bishop or two, use. But it is a phrase that the Church does not use officially, and I long ago heard or read that it is contrary to Christological doctrine.
Here is what Fr. Lukefahr wrote:
"As a human being, the risen Christ is united to Life itself, the life of God."Obviously, I am calling attention to the term "human being." It is actually incorrect to call Jesus a "human being." Instead he is a divine, supreme Being who took to himself a "human nature." This is said because He was already a "Being" before he became man. Therefore he cannot be a "human being," which is a term properly used only for a visible, wholly created person. Please don't misunderstand. I am not trying to play down Christ's humanity. Not at all. I am merely pointing out that the Catechism does not call Jesus a "human being," but it does say this about God:
228. "'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ...' (Dt 6:4; Mk 12:29). The Supreme Being must be unique, without equal ... If God is not one, he is not God."God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.
JohnYou just made my heart jump for JOY.........Thank You very much. That is what I wanted to hear. WOW.
-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.
JmjHi, Mateo.
I appreciate your concern about what Emerald said ["I don't think Christ had a mortal body, because he never sinned and therefore would not 'surely die'. If he were mortal, you pretty much have to say that he sinned. Notice that his death was caused by being attacked. I think in keeping with will of his Father, he sort of allowed"].But in reality, I think that Emerald's observation is in keeping with what the Church teaches. Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I am assuming that you especially object to his saying the Christ did not have a "mortal body." My impression is that you think Jesus could have died without being killed. I don't believe that is correct.
Here is what the CCC says:
1008. "Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin. Even though man's nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. 'Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned' is thus 'the last enemy' of man left to be conquered."
[Thus, Jesus, being free from sin, was immune from bodily death. He could die only by permitting someone to kill him. JFG]627. "Christ's death was a real death in that it put an end to his earthly human existence. But because of the union his Body retained with the Person of the Son, his was not a mortal corpse like others, for 'divine power preserved Christ's Body from corruption.' ... "
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.
Are we sure Christ assumed frailties? i.e. getting a cold, tripping over a log or miscalculating something? If so, did they stem from a fallen human body (no!) or did he allow those things to occur to be one like us? I guess that could be possible.I know this much, that He did not have a fallen human nature, as unlike the high priests who were themselves fallen and needed to make holocaust not only for the people but themselves as well, making the sacrifice insufficient, Christ was the perfect sacrifice and therefore acceptable to the Father.
But that being so, then I wonder exactly what is the substantive difference between the body of the Christ who walked the earth before the crucifixion and that of the Risen Christ.
I always assumed that 'one like us in all things but sin' meant the fact that he was a human (rational animal as Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle define it), and also figured that 'in all things but sin' must have meant that having not sinned that he did not have a fallen human nature, thereby avoiding colds, stumbling over logs, miscalculating mileage on the road to Emmaus, you name it. Right? But again, that doesn't mean he may not have assumed these various ailments in order to be one like us. In other words, by force instead of a direct consequence of sin. Kind of like the difference between smashing your car into a pole or taking a hammer to the hood.
(If that last anology didn't make any sense, ignore it. If it did, then please explain it to me.)
I don't know the answer.
Mateo, I should know what Gnosticism is; I've heard it a million times and believe or not I don't really know what it is. I know what an ag-nostic is... that would be, I believe, a gnostic in Nebraska? Or a fascist for that matter. What is a fascist? lol. I would like to know what it is that people think I am.
But what about all that other cool stuff I said about passibility? I'm hurt. Noone liked that part. I've been dissed!
Talk to me.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 14, 2002.
Oh yeah Fred, you talked I think in another forum about whether Christ laughed or not... or had a sense of humor.When I did my thesis on the causes and conditions of laughter, after my defense everyone wanted me to answer that particular question, but I purposefully dodged it because I figured that to answer it I would need a few more premises that I don't have access to.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 14, 2002.
JmjEmerald, you wondered: "Are we sure Christ assumed frailties? i.e. getting a cold, tripping over a log or miscalculating something? If so, did they stem from a fallen human body (no!) or did he allow those things to occur to be one like us?"
In my opinion, if Jesus suffered illness and injury, it would have been because he allowed it, not because he was naturally susceptible to them. I would use the same logic that I used earlier. Here again is part of CCC #1008:
"'Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned' is thus 'the last enemy' of man left to be conquered."
Last time, I wrote, "Thus, Jesus, being free from sin, was immune from bodily death. He could die only by permitting someone to kill him."
Now since Adam and Eve "would have been immune" also from sickness "had [they] not sinned," it follows that the sinless Jesus was immune from sickness (and, I think, injury). He could become ill or hurt only by permitting this to happen. Perhaps he allowed this, to be in greater solidarity with mankind, to experience all that we experience, but without sinning.God bless you.
John
PS: I didn't mention what you said about passibility (ability to suffer) because I didn't understand it, not because I wanted to hurt you! You are extremely bright and accustomed to speaking in language that is sometimes too complex for me. [That is not a complaint, but a compliment and a confession of my weakness!]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2002.
Emerald wrote:"Mateo, I should know what Gnosticism is; I've heard it a million times and believe or not I don't really know what it is. I know what an ag-nostic is... that would be, I believe, a gnostic in Nebraska? Or a fascist for that matter. What is a fascist? lol. I would like to know what it is that people think I am."
Actually, I've called a certain atheist poster a fascist in the past. I wasn't calling him a name. I was actually identifying him by his behavior. According to dictionary.com, a fascist is:
"One who advocates a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
In my view, a fascist is a person who attempts to use the power of government to support their views and suppress opposing views.
Regarding Gnosticism, I am using the Catholic.com's description of Gnosticism as a point of reference. Here's the text:
"Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
'Matter is evil!' was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ."
I don't suggest that your statement was "Gnostic," but merely that it seemed to approach the idea that our human bodies were designed to die, therefore Jesus couldn't have a "real" human body. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth!
As I understand, the fully human "Adam and Eve" couple did not possess bodies meant to die; but part of their punishment was to allow for death, as a consequence of the fall. Based on that precedent, Jesus could have a fully human body. I guess the term "mortal body" is a confusing one. Before the fall, did Adam and Eve have "mortal bodies"? Did they have "immortal bodies"?
In Christ,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 15, 2002.
Ahhh ok Mateo; that helps. The 'evil is a substance' thing.No, we are in complete agreement. The original design of the human was that of noncorruption. There is something to do with the Tree of Life though, that seemed to have some sustaining principle to it, the nature of which I don't know.
Evil as I understand it is non-being. Not any non-being, but only the absence of good where good ought to exist. As an example, if my computer lacks an oil filter, this is not 'evil', but if my car lacks an oil filter, this would be 'evil' as it is missing what pertains to, or is necessary, to its fufillment according to design.
So at any rate, we humans are fallen insofar as we lack the perfection of our original design. Christ did not lack, and therefore is the perfect and acceptable sacrifice. So I assumed, then, as John (the poster) points out, that Christ would had lived indefinitely had he not been 'attacked' from an outside source.
Hey John, the passability thing... I'm referring to that unique thing whereby Christ can walk through walls, yet walk on the Road to Emmause (he did not slip through the ground as he walked upon it). I know that sounds funny, but what I'm getting at is that it seems the ressurected body, and perhaps the pre-fall Adam and Eve bodies, seemed to have this obedience to the will about when to experience contact with matter and when to pass through matter. I'm probably using the term 'passibility' incorrectly. There seemed to be an incredible command of the elements there. I'm speculating that, whatever the nature of this control was, that we lost it through the fall, and that it seems that's where the 'certain death' comes from... because at one point it occurred to me that all death, every last type, can be traced back to matter not passing through another chunk of matter and causing fatal damage. I know it sounds wierd, but when you ponder it long enough it is really, really, really interesting...
I wasn't really hurt, just joking around.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 15, 2002.
You John, and Mateo and Eugene are much, much better versed in all these things than I am, let me tell you. I know a couple things but I have never applied myself the way I coulda/shoulda.In the intellectual world, I would be cold caller, making the initial contact and stepping aside while the big boys close the sale. I'm sneaky and intuitive but not syllogistic and wise.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 15, 2002.
By the way, and somewhat related, I've always been curious about this angel that was placed at the gate of the garden after the fall, with the "fiery revolving sword". Anyone have any insight into this?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 17, 2002.
making the initial contact and stepping aside while the big boys close the sale.Yeah nothing like watching a heavyweight fight. Revenge of the Nerds, (the internet that is) your brains finally have a chance to flex their biceps in a way they could have only dreamed of years ago. Well Im pretty happy to have found this site- Im a big fat swollen leach, a parasite sucking the life blood out of the God freaks for all Im worth, fantastic keep up all the good work please ladies and gentlemen!
-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 17, 2002.
sometimes I write before I think, please ignore my sillyness but you get the main point, this forum is a great source of knowledge.
-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 17, 2002.
Hi, Emerald.
Is your curiosity about the presence of an angel at all, or is it about why the angel bears a "fiery revolving sword"?
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 18, 2002.
...about the fiery revolving sword, and what that might signify. The revolving part in particular.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 18, 2002.
Hi, Emerald.I think that you are getting the words "fiery revolving sword" from the New American Bible (Genesis 3:24), which refers to the "cherubim" (plural of "cherub" -- i.e., more than one angel) placed by God.
Compared to other translations, that "fiery revolving sword" business is pretty crummy at communicating the idea. Try these out instead:
[New International Version] "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."
[New American Standard Bible] "So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life."
[Amplified Bible] "So [God] drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep and guard the way to the tree of life."
[New King James Version] "So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life."
[Revised Standard Version] "He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. "
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 18, 2002.
That helps. Thanks.Not much to the revolving issue then.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 18, 2002.