I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief? It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once: > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us > > John 1:14 I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

Before Jesus died on the cross, his body functioned like any other human being — he was breathing to stay alive, and then, after taking his last breath, he died. Then, he rose from the dead, and his body could appear anywhere (at any given time). Assuming Jesus rose with the same body as was crucified, was it subject to natural laws of requiring oxygen to survive? Notably, some evidence leading to the conclusion of a body with some physical limitations like requiring oxygen include eating fish with his disciples, and the fact that holes punched in his feet and hands by the Roman leaders were still visible. Given that Jesus is seated at the right hand of The Most High, does his body require oxygen to stay alive, or does the power of God sustain it?

In [this short background information](https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/book-of-mormon) of The Book of Mormon, we learn that Moroni was the son of the American prophet Mormon, who must have died as a human being. But then the article said: > Latter-day Saints believe that it was to this hillside, today called the Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York, that **Moroni returned in 1823 as an angel to lead the teenage boy Joseph Smith to the hidden plates**. Joseph Smith later founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In mainstream Christianity, a human being will be given a glorified body after the general resurrection, retaining his/her bodily nature, never becoming an angel who is always 100% spirit. Before general resurrection, for denominations that believe in the conscious intermediate state, the souls of those who passed away would NOT have a body and God would not have permitted these body-less souls to appear to the living. God would have sent an angel instead who has always been spiritual, only that God would give this angel a temporary bodily appearance so humans can see this angel. **How does human being Moroni re-appearing as an angel explained by LDS in light of the normal progression of the human being's journey after death?** 1. Was Moroni's human nature changed into an angel? 1. Was the term "angel" to describe Moroni not precise, i.e. it was Moroni in his glorified body (like Jesus after resurrection) appearing to Joseph Smith as like an angel? 1. Or was it a special act of God that Moroni's consciousness (which God maintains prior to his eventual resurrection along with everyone else) was given a temporary angelic nature for the purpose of his mission in 1823? That once that mission was completed God change him back into a non-resurrected human being after his mission? Pardon my ignorance: - I know very little of the LDS "anthropology" of post-mortem nature of human being and of how LDS understand the angelic nature. For example, do we become angels? What IS an angel; is an angel 100% spiritual like what mainstream Christianity teaches? - And I don't know the "standard timeline" either (i.e. whether a human being is resurrected right after dying rather than waiting along with the rest of humanity). My question is primarily about whether the Moroni's case is unique or typical when compared to the normal progression of a human being's life after death.

The *glorified body* of Jesus who appeared to the disciples after resurrection is one of the most foundational truths of Christianity, the basis of our hope for our future resurrection of the body as well. **My question**: since in his glorified body Jesus ate and drank with his disciples before his Ascension ([Lk 24:42-43,John 21:12-14,Acts 10:41-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+24%3A42-43%2Cjohn+21%3A12-14%2CActs+10%3A41-43&version=NLT)) , can we conclude that there is eating and drinking in the new heaven and new earth since we will have similar glorified body that Jesus has, and which was shown to be capable of eating and drinking? Or should we interpret the verses as "accommodation" only, so that Jesus can prove to the disciples that he is REAL and/or that the resurrection is BODILY (not just spirit)? Or maybe we should interpret the eating and drinking not literally, but find the theological message behind them? ### Food for thoughts 1. For an argument that Luke didn't intend the eating and drinking to be read literally, read the 1988 *Gregorianum* journal article [Did Jesus Eat the Fish (Luke 24:42-43)?](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23577821) by Jesuit scholar [Gerald O'Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_O%27Collins) . 2. If there IS eating and drinking in the new creation, how about the final product of our glorified digestive system? Pardon the image, but are there toilets in heaven? How about the [39 trillion microbes that we carry in our human microbiome](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/human-microbiome/) , are they glorified as well? 3. If there is NO eating and drinking in the new creation, how should we understand the references to the - **Great Banquet** ("eat at the feast" *cf*. Luke 14:18-24, "eat and drink at my table" *cf*. Luke 22:29-30), and the - **Marriage Supper of the Lamb** ("until that day when I drink it anew with you" *cf*. Matt 26:29, "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" *cf*. Luke 22:16, "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" *cf*. Rev 19:6-9)?

Christianity has always opposed any religion that considered the soul purer or holier by nature than the body, as some eastern religions or Gnosticism did. At the same time Christianity through new birth introduced two natures in a man, at war with each other calling, one the flesh and the other the Spirit. (Gal 5:17) Most biblical commentators I have read make sure it is understood that the term ‘flesh’ in scripture is not just referring to the physical body but by the word ‘flesh’ it means the whole evil nature, soul and body, to make sure the idea of a false Gnostic conflict between soul and body is avoided. To muddy the waters slightly, there is a general admission through the Lords prayer that Christians still need to pray daily: give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. There may be some that think they might not sin a whole day but most Christians, at least the ones I have met, would agree with the concept that they are still very much guilty of daily sins against God’s perfect law after conversion. Only that by the blood of Christ are they cleansed and forgiven by their confession. But even those that believe in some kind of Christian perfectionism and imagine to be sinless for several days or longer would still understand that they frequently sin, just as James says in James 3:2. I personally feel I perpetually fall short of obeying the Law fully as I doubt I have ever loved God more than half as much as I ought to. But that is just my own persuasion along with several famous Protestants mind you. On the other hand, there is a general belief that after we die physically, that we will never sin again. In summary, common Christian beliefs. While in the body: 1 John 1:8-9 (ESV) > If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is > not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to > forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. After we die, in heaven Revelation 21:4 > He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be > no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain > anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So the question is: if the word ‘flesh’ is not highly linked to the physical body, why is this the case (without promoting any kind eastern religious or gnostic ideas) that, while we live in the physical body, we can’t avoid sin and after our soul leaves the body into heaven (or rather with a new body) we are sinless forever? Why does this shift in imperfect-to-perfect, occur, exactly when the physical body dies?

1 Samuel 28:7-8 ESV *The Medium of Endor Raises the Spirit of Samuel* > Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a > medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants > said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at Endor.” > > So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and > two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, > “**Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name > to you**.” Luke 24:36-39 ESV *Disciples Mistake Jesus for a Spirit* > As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among > them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But **they were startled and > frightened and thought they saw a spirit**. And he said to them, “Why > are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands > and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For **a spirit does > not have flesh and bones as you see that I have**.” Matthew 12:43-45 ESV *Return of an Unclean Spirit* > “**When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through > waterless places seeking rest, but finds none**. Then it says, ‘I will > return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the > house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it > **seven other spirits more evil than itself**, and they enter and dwell > there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So > also will it be with this evil generation.” The unclean spirits, demons, seek to possess a body and therefore torment people for control of their bodies to hurt themselves and others. Jesus cleansed people's souls by casting out the unclean spirits called "demons". 1. Are angels spirits which possess immortal bodies? 2. Are humans spirits which possess mortal bodies? 3. Are demons the unclean spirits of dead humans (and Nephilim) that find no rest after death? 4. Do the spirits of the righteous dead remain at rest until they are resurrected? 5. **Are unclean spirits or demons the ghosts of dead people instead of fallen angels, which have spiritual bodies? Is this why the demons, which have no bodies, seek to possess one?**

In [John 20:17](http://biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm) it is written that, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene after resurrection, He says to her: >Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father However, Jesus does tell to other disciples to touch Him, after resurrection. For example, later on, in John 20:27, when Jesus appears to His disciples for a second time and Thomas (the Doubter) is with them, He says to Thomas: >Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe. Similarly, in [Luke 24:39](http://biblehub.com/luke/24-39.htm) it is written that post-resurrection Jesus said to His disciples: >See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. Thus, I fail to understand why Jesus would negate Mary Magdalene to touch Him but not to His disciples. **How have theologians and the teachings of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant churches interpreted the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene?** How is the fact that He had not yet ascended to the Father related to Mary not touching Jesus? Surely, once He was gone to the Father, it would be impossible to her for touching Jesus! One possible explanation is that Jesus did not have a physical body (e.g. [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15598/did-jesus-transform-into-spirit-form-after-resurrection) or [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8368/was-jesus-resurrected-body-the-same-as-his-glorified-body-that-he-now-has-in-he) discussion). Personally, I do not believe this was the case, as it it at odd with the other texts (where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have"). Neither did [Aquinas](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm) .

According to Wikipedia , "christian mortalism" describes the idea that the soul is not immortal, but dies together with the body and rises in the resurrection. Proponents of this are Jehovahs Witnesses, some Lutherans, Seventh-Day adventists and some others. Since the soul is dead or dissolved after death, that means God recreates it for the resurrection, as a body that is dissolved would need to be recreated. Since God is omniscient, not only does he know how each person would behave before they are born, this arguably also means that he knows how any potential person would have behaved if given the chance. Then, what is the difference between someone actually having gone through life, now no longer existing after death except for in the mind of God, to a person never having existed except for in the mind of God? In a sense this is asking what value the life-on-earth has, but I want to expand it in this sense to add the notion of how could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed when that person is not fundamentally different from a person who has lived (both just existing in the mind of God after the latter person has died).

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there will come a day when we will all get resurrected in our bodies. Critics say that the fact that cannibalism exists makes that logically impossible. If one person eats another person, how could both bodies be resurrected? How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to that argument?

We read in Luke 24:31 (NRSVCE) how Jesus walked with two disciples on the way of Emmaus post-Resurrection and joined them for a meal: > When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. We go on to read in Verses 40-43: > And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence. It is implied that Jesus ate fish just in order to prove that he was not a ghost as had been feared by the disciples. But his partaking of the meal with the disciples at Emmaus was with a different purpose, and he may not have disappeared before eating the bread he had 'divided'. We also see in Jn 21:13-14 how the Lord joined the disciples for a hearty meal by the Sea of Galilee, after the Resurrection: > Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. Going by the narrations of Luke and John, Jesus' physical body after the Resurrection had the attributes it had had prior to the event, more specifically, hunger and the need to consume food. But, St Paul has somewhat different view of resurrected body, as can be seen in 1 Cor 15:42-44: > So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church reconcile the picture of the resurrected body presented by St Paul in 1 Cor 15 *vis-a-vis* the narrations in Luke 24 and John 21 ?

>“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬ ‭NIV‬‬ > “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭22‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Which translation fits better with the context? It seems that for the groans to stop the inner groans of the Christian should also stop too as in verse 23: > “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭23‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I've heard and read that when we die, and we go to heaven, we won't have bodies. We'll be spirits only, but so happy that we won't need bodies or objects. - In School we were taught that when we go to Heaven, we can have everything we want. Now, that's not possible at all if we're only spirits, and there is no physical world (i.e. an Earth) - Doesn't the Bible talk about God's Kingdom, White horses and gates and pearls? I mean, what good is all of that if we can't touch/interact with it (remember, we won't have bodies)? **So this leads me to ask, does the Catholic church teach that we will have physical bodies in heaven?**

It seems that believers will receive their new bodies at the second coming: > 1 Cor 15:51,52: "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." However, if a believer dies before the second coming, it appears that they will already receive a new body: > 2 Cor 5:1: "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands." How can these two scriptures be reconciled? Is the "building from God" a temporary vessel until the believer receives his/her resurrected body at the second coming or are these two bodies the same? Or maybe something entirely different?

I have seen many answers and comments (here for example ) which seem to indicate that the Biblical Unitarian position is that Jesus was born again or born from above at his resurrection. The idea is that believers also experience the born again experience at their resurrection and not during this life. "If you are still flesh, you are not born again - or 'from above' as Jesus put it." is the most direct quote I could find. Additionally I have seen it said that Jesus is not "in" the spirit...he "is" spirit. In other words, coupling the assertion that **if you are still flesh you are not born again** with the assertion that **Jesus was not born again until his resurrection** seems to bring the **conclusion that Jesus did not rise in flesh**. From an answer to an unrelated question: > The earlier Unitarians accepted the notion of a physical resurrection, but most of the story is now interpreted in a symbolic fashion. - The Encyclopedia of World Faiths, p136, Eds. Bishop & Darton, MacDonald Orbis, 1987 The question is, Do Biblical Unitarians not believe that Jesus' physical body was resurrected from the grave and ascended into heaven ... that he is only spirit and not flesh?

in Matthew 27:52-53 > tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep > were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, > they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Source Is there any teaching or opinions on what happened to these saints after they appeared to many? Did they literally raised from the dead with their body or did they appear only as spirits? Did their body go back to the tombs afterwards or were assumed? What is the catholic belief?

If I have understood the Supplement to the Third Part of Aquinas's monumental *Summa Theologica* correctly, Aquinas argues that, following the Last Judgement, the redeemed bask in the light of God's presence in the heavens, while the earth, stripped of all animal and vegetable life, and, as far as I can tell, uninhabited, is left as a sterile accretion of gemstones, glowing with divine power. To pick one of several passages where this is laid out: >Therefore plants and animals will altogether cease after the renewal of the world... Now animals and plants were made for the upkeep of human life; wherefore it is written (Genesis 9:3): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered all flesh to you [Vulgate: 'have I delivered them all to you']." Therefore when man's animal life ceases, animals and plants should cease. But after this renewal animal life will cease in man. Therefore neither plants nor animals ought to remain. (Question 91, Article 5 ) I have deep respect for Aquinas and his writings, but this seems to contradict my understanding of the resurrection of the body and the 'new heavens and a new earth' as laid out in the final chapters of Revelation. The biblical account - as I understand it - speaks of the redeemed being resurrected to enjoy - in addition to the spiritual bliss of God's presence - the glory of a re-created physical universe, complete with trees, meadows, lions, horses, waterfalls, and doubtless many other things - not purged, but renewed and perfected. Is Aquinas being unscriptural at this point? Or am I misunderstanding either the philosopher or the Bible?

According to official Catholic teaching, the righteous will be judged after death and then go to either heaven (or purgatory) or hell. However, there will then by a 'final judgment', at which point everyone will be reincarnated ('resurrected') in glorified bodies. Where will these glorified bodies be (will they all be on planet Earth), according to Catholicism?

I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek ideas about the uncleanness of the body contrasted with the purity of the mind/spirit). Particularly in 1 Cor 15, but also more generally across the NT – how does the Bible rebut the ideas of Gnosticism? (i.e., that Jesus and subsequent resurrection was physical).

What was the nature of humans (i.e., Adam and Eve) like before the fall? What will the nature of humans be like after the resurrection (when those who are saved receive glorified bodies)? Are there any differences between the two? Did Adam and Eve also have glorified bodies? If Adam and Eve had the same nature that humans will have after the resurrection, how come they fell into sin but resurrected believers will never sin? Are there any Christian scholarly publications that address the above questions?

Jesus is Ascended into Heaven with a ***"resurrected body".*** Mary was Assumed into Heaven with a ***"glorified body?*** >Revelation 21:27 > >"Nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom..." I put a question mark on Mary's glorified body. Why? St.Pope Pius XII in the Assumption Dogma leave this part unsettled for all the faithful to ponder. *Mary no doubt the Catholic Church Doctrine teaches was bestowed with a unique and singular gift of Immaculate Body but still not a "glorified or spiritual body". Immaculate body cannot enter Heaven only spiritual or glorified bodies in reference to CCC999 & CCC1000 plus St. Paul teaching on 1Corinthian50-51.* Mary at the end of her earthly life either suffers "dormition" or experienced actual physical death prior to Assumption into Heaven. But, the state of Mary's physical body is left unsettled by St.Pope Pius XII.Does Mary's "dormition" means She had already possessed a "glorified body" or after experiencing physical death Mary was given a "glorified body"? Jesus clearly suffered physical death, the proof is when His side was pierced "Blood & Water" gushed forth signifying there's no more blood left.And after three days rose again with a "resurrected body". My question is in reference to St.Paul teaching in **1Corinthian 15:50-51** **Where O Death is Your Victory?** >*"Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed." - [1 Corinthians 15:51](http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-51.htm) If St.Paul teaches that flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, Mary's state of physical body although Immaculate is still a real "flesh & blood".How can She enter/assume into Heaven in that physical state? In view of the above, my question is Jesus "resurrected body" differs from Mary's "glorified body"? Also for clarity of the matter when was the "glorified body" of Mary given?, is it in Heaven or while here on earth.If we follow "dormition" teaching there's a possibility Mary already possessed a "glorified body" because death has no sting in Her Immaculate Body. But if we follow the teaching that Mary experienced physical death then a "glorified body" was given to Her after death, but also still on earth and not yet in Heaven by virtue of St.Paul teaching "on flesh & blood cannot inherit the Kingdom". I'm looking only answers from Catholicism and Church Father and Saints reflections and commentaries.