A puzzle about resurrection...weird! (For Believers)

[_Tarski]

What's wrong with blood?

I think I gave a plausible explanation for how that came about in my post above.

[_Jersey Girl]

ab

We know that resurrected bodies do not contain blood.

How do we know that, ab?

I suppose I ought to have phrased it, "LDS believe that".

In any case, the reasons are in part due to LDS scripture:

D&C 129: 1-2
1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—
2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
D&C 130: 22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Furthermore one combines those with these from the Bible:

Luke 24: 39
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 Cor. 15: 50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

ab.

With all due respect, how do any of the above prove that a resurrected body doesn't have blood in it?

I'd prefer that you use the words of Christ to explain how those rule out the resurrected body having blood in it.

Thanks,
Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

We know that resurrected bodies do not contain blood. If no blood, then one wonders about metabolism and such. Apparently the digestive track is still in tact as Jesus ate fish and later many will enjoy wine together. Still, without blood I don't see why we'd have the other microorganisms.

The two bolded parts contradict each other. If the digestive tract is, in fact, still intact (check out that rhyme), then microorganisms are responsible for aiding in digestion. This is the reason that poop stinks. The idea that resurrected bodies don't contain blood completely (biologically speaking) negates the body. What is the rationale for resurrected bodies not containing blood. What's wrong with blood?

Yes, I know I worded it poorly again. My point wasn't that digestion continues to function in precisely the same manner. Obviouly without blood that cannot be. Furthermore I am aware that microorganisms play a part in digestion. My point was simply that we know we have a throat, stomach, and probably (although I didn't say probably) intestines and the infamous rectum. All that can exist without microorganisms still allowing Jesus to put the fish in His mouth and swallow. Whether He finished digesting it like us or where the fish went afterwards is something that I wasn't trying to address.

What's wrong with blood? It's that 1 Cor 15 scripture. Tarski has already commented on that and while I disagree, I think he has a point.

[_Tarski]

the infamous rectum.

speak for yourself! LOL

[_asbestosman]

With all due respect, how do any of the above prove that a resurrected body doesn't have blood in it?

I'd prefer that you use the words of Christ to explain how those rule out the resurrected body having blood in it.

None of it does. I was speaking from an LDS point of view even though, on second thought, perhaps I should not have done so. My audience here is chiefly not LDS. I apologize for the confusion and poor choice in words. I sould have accurately stated, "LDS believe" because the truthfulness of the D&C is disputed.

[_silentkid]

What's wrong with blood?

I think I gave a plausible explanation for how that came about in my post above.

Sorry...I was composing my post when you posted.

Edited to add: I understand the scriptural reference. I guess what I was trying to ask is if there is an LDS rationale (besides the Corinthians scripture) for what makes blood incompatible with resurrected bodies.

[_truth dancer]

In addition... (smile)

The particles in our body have been used in other bodies, and when we die our bodies turn into the bodies of bacteria...

My understanding is that with each breath we take we inhale particles from every person who has ever lived.

Hmmm...

;-)

~dancer~

[_Jersey Girl]

With all due respect, how do any of the above prove that a resurrected body doesn't have blood in it?

I'd prefer that you use the words of Christ to explain how those rule out the resurrected body having blood in it.

None of it does. I was speaking from an LDS point of view even though, on second thought, perhaps I should not have done so. My audience here is chiefly not LDS. I apologize for the confusion and poor choice in words. I sould have accurately stated, "LDS believe" because the truthfulness of the D&C is disputed.

In the New Testament verses that you used, Christ says : Handle me" (feel me) and then makes the comment that a Spirit hath not flesh and bones.

When you feel a persons body...can you feel their blood or do you feel flesh and bones?

[_harmony]

In addition... (smile)

The particles in our body have been used in other bodies, and when we die our bodies turn into the bodies of bacteria...

My understanding is that with each breath we take we inhale particles from every person who has ever lived.

Hmmm...

;-)

~dancer~

Oh thanks, TD! That's like saying just because a pig is a re-eater that bacon is pig poop!

[_truth dancer]

LOL! Harmony...

I hadn't thought of it quite that way but you do have a point!

:-)

~dancer~